ContentsArticles

David Bohm 1David Chalmers 8The Emperor's New Mind 11Stuart Hameroff 13Holonomic brain theory 16Orch- OR 19Roger Penrose 25Karl H. Pribram 31Quantum biology 34Quantum brain dynamics 38Quantum mind 39The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe 50Shadows of the Mind 52Henry Stapp 54Evan Harris Walker 55Theory of mind 57Hard problem of consciousness 67Evolutionary neuroscience 69Electromagnetic theories of consciousness 70Consciousness causes collapse 72Bohm interpretation 78Self- aware 93

ReferencesArticle Sources and Contributors 97Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 99

Article LicensesLicense 100

David Bohm 1

David Bohm

David Bohm

David Joseph Bohm (1917-1992)

Born December 20, 1917Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, U.S.

Died October 27, 1992 (aged 74)London, UK

Residence United Kingdom

Citizenship British

Nationality British

Ethnicity Hungarian-Lithuanian Jewish

Fields Physicist

Institutions Manhattan ProjectPrinceton UniversityUniversity of São PauloTechnionUniversity of BristolBirkbeck College

Alma mater Pennsylvania State CollegeCalifornia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of California, Berkeley

Doctoral advisor Robert Oppenheimer

Doctoral students Yakir AharonovDavid PinesJeffrey BubHenri Bortoft

Other notable students Jack Sarfatti

Known for Bohm-diffusionBohm interpretationAharonov-Bohm effectHolonomic modelBohm Dialogue

Influences Albert EinsteinJiddu KrishnamurtiArthur SchopenhauerGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Influenced John Stewart Bell

David Bohm 2

Neuropsychology

Mind and BrainPortal

David Joseph Bohm (20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992) was a U.S.-born British quantum physicist who madesignificant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the ManhattanProject.

Biography

Youth and collegeBohm was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania to a Hungarian Jewish immigrant father and a Lithuanian Jewishmother. He was raised mainly by his father, a furniture store owner and assistant of the local rabbi. Bohm attendedPennsylvania State College, graduating in 1939, and then headed west to the California Institute of Technology for ayear, and then transferred to the theoretical physics group under Robert Oppenheimer at the University of California,Berkeley, where he was to obtain his doctorate degree.Bohm lived in the same neighborhood as some of Oppenheimer's other graduate students (Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz,Joseph Weinberg, and Max Friedman) and with them became increasingly involved not only with physics, but withradical politics. Bohm gravitated to alternative models of society and became active in organizations like the YoungCommunist League, the Campus Committee to Fight Conscription, and the Committee for Peace Mobilization alllater branded as Communist organizations by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover.

Work and doctorate

Manhattan Project Contributions

During World War II, the Manhattan Project mobilized much of Berkeley's physics research in the effort to producethe first atomic bomb. Though Oppenheimer had asked Bohm to work with him at Los Alamos (the top-secretlaboratory established in 1942 to design the bomb), the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, wouldnot approve Bohm's security clearance, after tip-offs about his politics (Bohm's friend, Joseph Weinberg, had alsocome under suspicion for espionage).Bohm remained in Berkeley, teaching physics, until he completed his Ph.D. in 1943, under an unusually ironiccircumstance. According to Peat (see reference below, p.64), "the scattering calculations (of collisions of protons anddeuterons) that he had completed proved useful to the Manhattan Project and were immediately classified. Withoutsecurity clearance, Bohm was denied access to his own work; not only would he be barred from defending his thesis,he was not even allowed to write his own thesis in the first place!" To satisfy the university, Oppenheimer certifiedthat Bohm had successfully completed the research. He later performed theoretical calculations for the Calutrons atthe Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, used to electromagnetically enrich uranium for use in the bomb dropped onHiroshima in 1945.

David Bohm 3

McCarthyism leads to Bohm leaving the United States

After the war, Bohm became an assistant professor at Princeton University, where he worked closely with AlbertEinstein. In May, 1949, at the beginning of the McCarthyism period, the House Un-American Activities Committeecalled upon Bohm to testify before it— because of his previous ties to suspected Communists. Bohm, however,pleaded the Fifth amendment right to decline to testify, and refused to give evidence against his colleagues.In 1950, Bohm was charged for refusing to answer questions before the Committee and arrested. He was acquitted inMay, 1951, but Princeton had already suspended him. After the acquittal, Bohm's colleagues sought to have hisposition at Princeton re-instated, and Einstein reportedly wanted Bohm to serve as his assistant. The university,however, did not renew his contract. Bohm then left for Brazil to take up a Chair in Physics at the University of SãoPaulo, and later was also at the Technion in Haifa, Israel, and at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Quantum theory and Bohm-diffusion

During his early period, Bohm made a number of significant contributions to physics, particularly in the area ofquantum mechanics and relativity theory. As a post-graduate at Berkeley, he developed a theory of plasmas,discovering the electron phenomenon now known as Bohm-diffusion. His first book, Quantum Theory published in1951, was well-received by Einstein, among others. However, Bohm became dissatisfied with the orthodox approachto quantum theory, which he had written about in that book, and began to develop his own approach (Bohminterpretation)— a non-local hidden variable deterministic theory whose predictions agree perfectly with thenondeterministic quantum theory. His work and the EPR argument became the major factor motivating John Bell'sinequality, whose consequences are still being investigated.

The Aharonov-Bohm effect

In 1955 Bohm moved to Israel, where he spent two years at the Technion at Haifa. Here he met his wife Saral, whobecame an important figure in the development of his ideas. In 1957, Bohm moved to the UK as a research fellow atthe University of Bristol. In 1959, with his student Yakir Aharonov, they discovered the Aharonov-Bohm effect,showing how a magnetic field could affect a region of space in which the field had been shielded, although its vectorpotential did not vanish there. This showed for the first time that the magnetic vector potential, hitherto amathematical convenience, could have real physical (quantum) effects. In 1961, Bohm was made Professor ofTheoretical Physics at Birkbeck College London, where his collected papers [1] are kept.

Bridging science, philosophy, and cognition

Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a bookshe had seen in the library by the world-renowned speaker on life subjects, Jiddu Krishnamurti. Bohm found himselfimpressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the seemingly-philosophical ideas ofKrishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and theImplicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to becomeclose friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophical subjects and the state of humanity.

The holonomic model of the brain

Bohm also made significant theoretical contributions to neuropsychology and the development of the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain.[2] In collaboration with Stanford neuroscientist Karl Pribram, Bohm helped establish the foundation for Pribram's theory that the brain operates in a manner similar to a hologram, in accordance with quantum mathematical principles and the characteristics of wave patterns. These wave forms may compose hologram-like organizations, Bohm suggested, basing this concept on his application of Fourier analysis, a mathematical method for decomposing complex waves into component sine waves. The holonomic brain model developed by Pribram and Bohm posits a lens defined world view— much like the textured prismatic effect of sunlight refracted by the churning mists of a rainbow— a view which is quite different from the more conventional

David Bohm 4

"objective reality" - not to be confused with objectivity - approach. Pribram held that if psychology means tounderstand the conditions that produce the world of appearances, it must look to the thinking of physicists likeBohm.[3]

Thought as a System

Bohm was alarmed by what he considered an increasing imbalance of not only 'man' and nature, but among peoples,as well as people, themselves. Bohm: "So one begins to wonder what is going to happen to the human race.Technology keeps on advancing with greater and greater power, either for good or for destruction." He goes on toask:

What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many peoplewould think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solveour problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems withis the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20%of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%.

In Bohm's view:...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doinganything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do withthe info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the onewho controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us.Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another majorfeature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. Itdoesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid thoseunpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence".

Bohm thus proposes in his book, Thought as a System, a pervasive, systematic nature of thought:What I mean by "thought" is the whole thing - thought, felt, the body, the whole society sharing thoughts - it'sall one process. It is essential for me not to break that up, because it's all one process; somebody else'sthoughts becomes my thoughts, and vice versa. Therefore it would be wrong and misleading to break it up intomy thoughts, your thoughts, my feelings, these feelings, those feelings... I would say that thought makes whatis often called in modern language a system. A system means a set of connected things or parts. But the waypeople commonly use the word nowadays it means something all of whose parts are mutually interdependent -not only for their mutual action, but for their meaning and for their existence. A corporation is organized as asystem - it has this department, that department, that department. They don't have any meaning separately;they only can function together. And also the body is a system. Society is a system in some sense. And so on.Similarly, thought is a system. That system not only includes thoughts, "felts" and feelings, but it includes thestate of the body; it includes the whole of society - as thought is passing back and forth between people in aprocess by which thought evolved from ancient times. A system is constantly engaged in a process ofdevelopment, change, evolution and structure changes...although there are certain features of the system whichbecome relatively fixed. We call this the structure.... Thought has been constantly evolving and we can't saywhen that structure began. But with the growth of civilization it has developed a great deal. It was probablyvery simple thought before civilization, and now it has become very complex and ramified and has much moreincoherence than before.Now, I say that this system has a fault in it - a "systematic fault". It is not a fault here, there or here, but it is afault that is all throughout the system. Can you picture that? It is everywhere and nowhere. You may say "I seea problem here, so I will bring my thoughts to bear on this problem". But "my" thought is part of the system. Ithas the same fault as the fault I'm trying to look at, or a similar fault.

David Bohm 5

Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them itmakes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems itcreates. (P. 18-19)

Bohm Dialogue

To address societal problems in his later years, Bohm wrote a proposal for a solution that has become known as"Bohm Dialogue", in which equal status and "free space" form the most important prerequisites of communicationand the appreciation of differing personal beliefs. He suggested that if these Dialogue groups were experienced on asufficiently wide scale, they could help overcome the isolation and fragmentation Bohm observed was inherent in thesociety.

Later yearsBohm continued his work in quantum physics past his retirement in 1987. His final work, the posthumouslypublished The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory (1993), resulted from adecades-long collaboration with his colleague Basil Hiley. He also spoke to audiences across Europe and NorthAmerica on the importance of dialogue as a form of sociotherapy, a concept he borrowed from London psychiatristand practitioner of Group Analysis Patrick De Mare, and had a series of meetings with the Dalai Lama. He waselected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1990.Near the end of his life, Bohm began to experience a recurrence of depression which he had suffered at earlier timesin his life. He was admitted to the Maudsley Hospital in South London on 10 May 1991. His condition worsened andit was decided that the only thing that might help him was electroconvulsive therapy. Bohm's wife consultedpsychiatrist David Shainberg, Bohm's long-time friend and collaborator, who agreed that electroconvulsivetreatments were probably his only option. Bohm showed marked improvement from the treatments and was releasedon 29 August. However, his depression returned and was treated with medication.[4]

David Bohm died of a heart attack in Hendon,[5] London, on 27 October 1992, aged 74. In fact, Professor Bohm wastraveling in a London taxi on that day, conversing with the cab driver; and not getting any response from thepassenger in the back seat for a few seconds, the driver turned back and found Dr. Bohm had died of a heart attack.[3]

David Bohm was considered by many Nobel laureates as one of best quantum physicists of all times, who richlydeserved the Nobel Prize, but failed to obtain it possibly due to political victimization.[3]

Publications• 1951. Quantum Theory, New York: Prentice Hall. 1989 reprint, New York: Dover, ISBN 0-486-65969-0• 1957. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, 1961 Harper edition reprinted in 1980 by Philadelphia: U of

Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 0-8122-1002-6• 1962. Quanta and Reality, A Symposium, with N. R. Hanson and Mary B. Hesse, from a BBC program published

by the American Research Council• 1965. The Special Theory of Relativity, New York: W.A. Benjamin.• 1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-7100-0971-2, 1983 Ark paperback: ISBN

0-7448-0000-5, 2002 paperback: ISBN 0-415-28979-3• 1985. Unfolding Meaning: A weekend of dialogue with David Bohm (Donald Factor, editor), Gloucestershire:

Foundation House, ISBN 0-948325-00-3, 1987 Ark paperback: ISBN 0-7448-0064-1, 1996 Routledge paperback:ISBN 0-415-13638-5

• 1985. The Ending of Time, with Jiddu Krishnamurti, San Francisco, CA: Harper, ISBN 0-06-064796-5.• 1987. Science, Order and Creativity, with F. David Peat. London: Routledge. 2nd ed. 2000. ISBN 0-415-17182-2.• 1991. Changing Consciousness: Exploring the Hidden Source of the Social, Political and Environmental Crises

Facing our World (a dialogue of words and images), coauthor Mark Edwards, Harper San Francisco, ISBN

David Bohm 6

0-06-250072-4• 1992. Thought as a System (transcript of seminar held in Ojai, California, from 30 November to 2 December

1990), London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-11980-4.• 1993. The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory, with B.J. Hiley, London:

Routledge, ISBN 0-415-12185-X (final work)• 1996. On Dialogue. editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, hardcover: ISBN 0-415-14911-8, paperback: ISBN

0-415-14912-6, 2004 edition: ISBN 0-415-33641-4• 1998. On Creativity, editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, hardcover: ISBN 0-415-17395-7, paperback: ISBN

0-415-17396-5, 2004 edition: ISBN 0-415-33640-6• 1999. Limits of Thought: Discussions, with Jiddu Krishnamurti, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-19398-2.• 1999. Bohm-Biederman Correspondence: Creativity and Science, with Charles Biederman. editor Paavo

Pylkkänen. ISBN 0-415-16225-4.• 2002. The Essential David Bohm. editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-26174-0. preface by the

Dalai Lama

See also• Aharonov-Bohm effect• American philosophy• Bohm diffusion of a plasma in a magnetic field• Bohm interpretation• Correspondence principle• EPR paradox• Holographic paradigm• Holographic principle• Holomovement• Holonomic brain theory• Implicate and Explicate Order• Implicate order• Jiddu Krishnamurti• Membrane paradigm• Penrose-Hameroff "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" theory of consciousness• The Bohm sheath criterion, which states that a plasma must flow with at least the speed of sound toward a solid

surface• Wave gene• John Stewart Bell• Karl Pribram• Influence on John David Garcia• List of American philosophers

David Bohm 7

References[1] http:/ / www. aim25. ac. uk/ cgi-bin/ search2?coll_id=3070& inst_id=33[2] Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and more conventional models of neuronal computation (http:/ / www.

acsa2000. net/ bcngroup/ jponkp/ #chap4)[3] http:/ / homepages. ihug. co. nz/ ~sai/ pribram. htm[4] F. David Peat, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1997, pp. 308-317. ISBN 0201328208.[5] Deaths England and Wales 1984-2006 (http:/ / www. findmypast. com/ BirthsMarriagesDeaths. jsp)

• "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics", David Z. Albert, Scientific American (May, 1994)• Brotherhood of the Bomb: The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and

Edward Teller, Herken, Gregg, New York: Henry Holt (2002) ISBN 0-8050-6589-X (information on Bohm'swork at Berkeley and his dealings with HUAC)

• Infinite Potential: the Life and Times of David Bohm, F. David Peat, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley (1997),ISBN 0-201-40635-7 DavidPeat.com (http:/ / www. fdavidpeat. com/ )

• Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm, (B.J. Hiley, F. David Peat, editors), London: Routledge(1987), ISBN 0-415-06960-2

• Thought as a System (transcript of seminar held in Ojai, California, from 30 November to 2 December 1990),London: Routledge. (1992) ISBN 0-415-11980-4.

• The Quantum Theory of Motion: an account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of QuantumMechanics, Peter R. Holland, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2000) ISBN 0-921-48453-9.

External links• English site (http:/ / www. david-bohm. net) for David Bohm's ideas about Dialogue.• the David_Bohm_Hub (http:/ / www. thinkg. net/ david_bohm/ ) From thinkg.net, with compilations of David

Bohm's life and work in form of texts, audio, video, and pictures.• Thought Knowledge Perception Institute (http:/ / www. tkpi. org) A non-partisan organization that aims to

preserve and continue the work of David Bohm and others.• Lifework of David Bohm: River of Truth (http:/ / www. vision. net. au/ ~apaterson/ science/ david_bohm.

htm#BOHM'S LEGACY): Article by Will Keepin• Dialogos (http:/ / www. dialogos. com): Consulting group, originally founded by Bohm colleagues William Isaacs

and Peter Garrett, aiming to bring Bohm dialogue into organizations.• (http:/ / www. quantum-mind. co. uk) quantum mind• Interview with David Bohm (http:/ / www. fdavidpeat. com/ interviews/ bohm. htm) provided and conducted by

F. David Peat along with John Briggs, first issued in Omni magazine, January 1987• David Bohm and Krishnamurti (http:/ / www. wie. org/ j11/ peat. asp)• Archive of papers at Birkbeck College relating to David Bohm. (http:/ / www. bbk. ac. uk/ lib/ about/ hours/

bohm)• Quantum-Mind (http:/ / www. quantum-mind. co. uk)

David Chalmers 8

David Chalmers

David John Chalmers

Full name David John Chalmers

Born 20 April 1966Australia

Era Contemporary philosophy

Region Western Philosophy

School Analytic

Main interests Philosophy of mindConsciousness

Notable ideas Hard problem of consciousness; property dualism; neutral monism; extended mind; two-dimensional semantics

David John Chalmers (born 20 April 1966) is an Australian philosopher specializing in the area of philosophy ofmind. He is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian NationalUniversity.

BackgroundChalmers was born and raised in Australia, and since 2004 has been Professor of Philosophy, Director of the Centrefor Consciousness, and an ARC Federation Fellow at the Australian National University. From an early age, heexcelled at mathematics, eventually completing his undergraduate education at the University of Adelaide with aBachelor's degree in mathematics and computer science. He then briefly studied at Lincoln College at the Universityof Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar before studying for his PhD at Indiana University Bloomington under DouglasHofstadter. He was a postdoctoral fellow in the Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology program directed by AndyClark at Washington University in St. Louis from 1993 to 1995, and his first professorship was at UC Santa Cruz,from August 1995 to December 1998. Chalmers was subsequently appointed Professor of Philosophy (1999-2004)and, later, Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies (2002-2004) at the University of Arizona, sponsor of theToward a Science of Consciousness [1] conference where he made his legendary "debut" in 1994.Chalmers' book, The Conscious Mind (1996), is widely considered (by both advocates and opponents) to be anessential work on consciousness and its relation to the mind-body problem in philosophy of mind.[2] In the book,Chalmers argues that all forms of physicalism (whether reductive or non-reductive) that have dominated modernphilosophy and science fail to account for the existence (that is, presence in reality) of consciousness itself. Heproposes an alternative dualistic view he calls naturalistic dualism (but which might also be characterized by moretraditional formulations such as property dualism, neutral monism, or double-aspect theory). The book wasdescribed by The Sunday Times as "one of the best science books of the year".[3]

David Chalmers 9

WorkChalmers is best known for his formulation of the notion of a hard problem of consciousness in both his book and inthe paper "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" (originally published in The Journal of ConsciousnessStudies, 1995). He makes the distinction between "easy" problems of consciousness, such as explaining objectdiscrimination or verbal reports, and the single hard problem, which could be stated "why does the feeling whichaccompanies awareness of sensory information exist at all?" The essential difference between the (cognitive) easyproblems and the (phenomenal) hard problem is that the former are at least theoretically answerable via the standardstrategy in philosophy of mind: functionalism. Chalmers argues for an "explanatory gap" from the objective to thesubjective, and criticizes physical explanations of mental experience, making him a dualist in an era that has beendominated by materialism.In support of this, Chalmers is famous for his commitment to the logical (though, importantly, not physical)possibility of philosophical zombies, although he was not the first to propose the thought experiment. Thesezombies, unlike the zombie of popular fiction, are complete physical duplicates of human beings, lacking onlyqualitative experience. Chalmers argues that since such zombies are conceivable to us, they must therefore belogically possible. Since they are logically possible, then qualia and sentience are not fully explained by physicalproperties alone. Instead, Chalmers argues that consciousness is a fundamental property ontologically autonomous ofany known (or even possible) physical properties. He further speculates that all information-bearing systems may beconscious, leading him to entertain the possibility of conscious thermostats and a qualified panpsychism he callspanprotopsychism. Though Chalmers maintains a formal agnosticism on the issue, even conceding the viability ofpanpsychism places him at odds with the majority of his contemporaries.After the publication of Chalmers' landmark paper, more than twenty papers in response were published in theJournal of Consciousness Studies. These papers (by Daniel Dennett, Colin McGinn, Francisco Varela, Francis Crick,and Roger Penrose among others) were collected and published in the book Explaining Consciousness: The HardProblem. John Searle fiercely critiqued Chalmers's views in The New York Review of Books.[4]

Chalmers, with Andy Clark, has written The Extended Mind, an article about the borders of the mind [5]

MiscellaneousOn his web site, David Chalmers has compiled a large bibliography on the philosophy of mind and related fieldswith close to 18000 annotated entries topically organized.Chalmers appears in The Matrix video documentary "The Roots of the Matrix" and presents a novel take on a largepart of the traditionally skeptical "brain in a vat" hypothesis. He maintains that this hypothesis is not, contrary tocommon philosophical opinion, a skeptical hypothesis.He serves on the editorial board of the journals Philo, Consciousness and Cognition, the Journal of ConsciousnessStudies, and Psyche.

BibliographyA partial list of publications by Chalmers:• The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (1996). Oxford University Press. hardcover: ISBN

0-19-511789-1, paperback: ISBN 0-19-510553-2• Toward a Science of Consciousness III: The Third Tucson Discussions and Debates (1999). Stuart R. Hameroff,

Alfred W. Kaszniak and David J. Chalmers (Editors). The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-58181-7• Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings (2002). (Editor). Oxford University Press. ISBN

0-19-514581-X or ISBN 0-19-514580-1

David Chalmers 10

See also• Hard problem of consciousness• PhilPapers

External links• David Chalmers's web site [6]

• David Chalmers's bibliography [7]

• Fragments of Consciousness [8] - Chalmers's blog.• Interview with Chalmers [9] - in Philosophy Now [10].• Consciousness [11], an episode of Philosophy Talk, hosts Chalmers• Video Interview [12] on BloggingHeads.tv by science writer John Horgan.• The Mystery of Consciousness [13] on Bright SBM Production.

References[1] http:/ / consciousness. arizona. edu/[2] http:/ / consc. net/ book/ reviews. html[3] The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (1996), paperback edition, back cover.[4] Searle's review of The Conscious Mind (http:/ / www. nybooks. com/ articles/ article-preview?article_id=1258) 6 March 1997 (subscription

required)Chalmers' response to Searle and Searle's reply (http:/ / www. nybooks. com/ articles/ 1179) 15 May 1997 (free access)

[5] http:/ / consc. net/ papers/ extended. html.[6] http:/ / consc. net/ chalmers/[7] http:/ / consc. net/ papers. html[8] http:/ / fragments. consc. net/[9] http:/ / www. philosophynow. org/ issue21/ 21chalmers. htm[10] http:/ / www. philosophynow. org[11] http:/ / philosophytalk. org/ pastShows/ Consciousness. htm[12] http:/ / bloggingheads. tv/ diavlogs/ 254[13] http:/ / brightsbm. com/ interviews/ index. php

The Emperor's New Mind 11

The Emperor's New Mind

The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds andThe Laws of Physics

Author Roger Penrose

Country United States

Language English

Genre(s) Artificial Intelligence

Publisher Oxford University Press

Publication date November 9, 1989

Pages 480

ISBN ISBN 0-198-51973-7 (first edition,hardcover)

OCLC Number 19724273 [1]

Dewey Decimal 006.3 20

LC Classification Q335 .P415 1989

The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics is a 1989 book bymathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose.Penrose presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of beingmodeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. Penrose hypothesizes that quantum mechanicsplays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness. The collapse of the quantum wavefunction isseen as playing an important role in brain function.The English version of the book is 602 pages long. The majority of the book is spent reviewing, for the scientificallyminded layreader, a plethora of interrelated subjects such as Newtonian physics, special and general relativity, thephilosophy and limitations of mathematics, quantum physics, cosmology, and the nature of time. Penroseintermittently describes how each of these bears on his developing theme: that consciousness is not "algorithmic".Only the later portions of the book address the thesis directly. Penrose states that his ideas on the nature ofconsciousness are speculative.The book does not discuss the implications of quantum computers for his theory of consciousness, as it somewhatpredated developments in the field of quantum computation. Following the publication of this book, Penrose beganto collaborate with Stuart Hameroff on a biological analog to quantum computation involving microtubules, whichbecame the foundation for his subsequent book, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science ofConsciousness."The Emperor's New Mind" attacks the claims of artificial intelligence using the physics of computing: Penrosenotes that the present home of computing lies more in the tangible world of classical mechanics than in theimponderable realm of quantum mechanics. The modern computer is a deterministic system that for the most partsimply executes algorithms. Penrose shows that, by reconfiguring the boundaries of a billiard table, one might makea computer in which the billiard balls act as message carriers and their interactions act as logical decisions. TheBilliard-Ball Computer was first designed some years ago by Edward Fredkin and Tommaso Toffoli of theMassachusetts Institute of Technology.Penrose won the Aventis prize in 1990 for this book.

The Emperor's New Mind 12

References• Roger Penrose (1989) "The Emperor's New Mind"

See also• The Emperor's New Clothes, the 19th century fairy tale which inspired the book's title• The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, a 2004 book by Penrose• Quantum mind• Church-Turing thesis• Alan Turing, creator of the Turing test• Shadows of the Mind• Raymond Smullyan (Is God a Taoist?; An Epistemological Nightmare)• Orch-OR

References[1] http:/ / worldcat. org/ oclc/ 19724273

Stuart Hameroff 13

Stuart Hameroff

Stuart Hameroff

Born Buffalo, New York, USA

Residence United States

Nationality American

Fields Anesthesiologist

Institutions University of Arizona

Alma mater University of PittsburghHahnemann University Hospital

Known for Consciousness studies

Influences Roger Penrose

Stuart Hameroff (Born in July 16, 1947, Buffalo, New York) is an anesthesiologist and professor at the Universityof Arizona known for his promotion of the scientific study of consciousness, and his theories of the mechanisms ofconsciousness.

CareerHameroff received his BS degree from the University of Pittsburgh and his MD degree from Hahnemann UniversityHospital (now part of Drexel University College of Medicine). He took an internship at the Tucson Medical Centerin 1973. From 1975 onwards, he has spent the whole of his career at the University of Arizona, becoming professorin the Department of Anesthesiology and Psychology and associate director for the Center for ConsciousnessStudies, both in 1999, and finally Emeritus professor for Anesthesiology and Psychology in 2003.

TheoriesAt the very beginning of his career, while at Hahneman, cancer-related research work resulted in him becominginterested in the part played by microtubules in cell division, and to speculate that they were controlled by someform of computing. It also suggested to him that part of the solution of the problem of consciousness might lie inunderstanding the operations of microtubules in brain cells, operations at the molecular and supramolecular level[1].The operations of microtubules are remarkably complex and their role pervasive in cellular operations; these facts led to the speculation that computation sufficient for consciousness might somehow be occurring there. These ideas are discussed in Hameroff's first book Ultimate Computing (1987)[2]. The main substance of this book dealt with the scope for information processing in biological tissue and especially in microtubules and other parts of the cytoskeleton. Hameroff argued that the cytoskeleton components could be the basic units of processing rather than the neurons. The book was primarily concerned with information processing, with consciousness secondary at this

Stuart Hameroff 14

stage.Separately from Hameroff, Roger Penrose had published his first book on consciousness, The Emperor's NewMind[3]. On the basis of Godel's incompleteness theorems, he argued that the brain could perform functions that nocomputer or system of algorithms could. From this it could follow that consciousness itself might be fundamentallynon-algorithmic, and incapable of being modelled as a classical Turing machine type of computer. By contrast, theidea that it could be explained mechanistically was prevalent in the field of Artificial Intelligence at that time.Penrose saw the principles of quantum theory as providing an alternative process through which consciousness couldarise. He further argued that this non-algorithmic process in the brain required a new form of the quantum wavereduction, later given the name objective reduction (OR), which could link the brain to the fundamental spacetimegeometry. At this stage, he had no precise ideas as to how such a quantum process might be instantiated in the brain.Moreover, Penrose's ideas were widely criticized by neuroscientists, logicians and philosophers, notably Grush andChurchland (Grush and Churchland, 1995) [4].Hameroff was inspired by Penrose's book to contact Penrose regarding his own theories about the mechanism ofanesthesia, and how it specifically targets consciousness via action on neural microtubules. The two met in 1992, andHameroff suggested that the microtubules were a good candidate site for a quantum mechanism in the brain. Penrosewas interested in the mathematical features of the microtubule lattice, and over the next two years the twocollaborated in formulating the orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) model of consciousness [1]. Followingthis collaboration, Penrose published his second consciousness book, Shadows of the Mind[5].This more developed version of their ideas was also widely attacked, and notably by the physicist, Max Tegmark,who calculated that quantum states in microtubules would survive for only 10-13 seconds, too brief to be of anysignificance for neural processes (Tegmark, 2000)[6]. Hameroff and the physicists Scott Hagan and Jack Tuszynski(Hagan, Hameroff & Tuszynski, 2002)[7] replied to Tegmark arguing that microtubules could be shielded against theenvironment of the brain. To date, there is no experimental confirmation of these proposed methods of shielding, butHameroff has proposed tests that could falsify the theory[8].Over the years since 1994, Hameroff has been active in promoting the Orch-OR model of consciousness through hisweb site [1], conferences and lectures. He was the lead organizer of the first Tucson consciousness meeting in 1994that brought together approximately 300 people interested in consciousness for the first time (e.g., David Chalmers,Christof Koch, Bernard Baars, Roger Penrose, Benjamin Libet). This conference is widely regarded as a landmarkevent within the field of consciousness studies, and by bringing researchers from various disciplines together lead tovarious useful synergies, resulting indirectly, for instance, in the formation of the Association for the Scientific Studyof Consciousness, and more directly in the creation of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University ofArizona, of which Hameroff is now the director. The Center for Consciousness Studies hosts meetings on study ofconsciousness every two years, as well as sponsoring seminars on consciousness theory.Hameroff appeared as himself in the documentary film What tнe ♯$*! Do ωΣ (k)πow!? (2004). He also participatedin the first Beyond Belief conference, where his theories were sharply criticized by Lawrence Krauss, amongothers.[1]

Stuart Hameroff 15

References• Hameroff, S.(1987) Ultimate Computing Elsevier• Penrose, R.(1989) The Emperor's New Mind Oxford University Press• Grush, R. & Churchland, P. (1995) "Gap's in Penrose's Toilings," Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(1), pp.

10-29• Penrose, R.(1994) Shadows of the Mind Oxford University Press• Tegmark, M. (2000) "Importance of quantum coherence in brain processes," Physical Reviews E, 61, pp.

4194-4206• Hagan, S., Hameroff, S. & Tuszynski, J.(2002) "Quantum computation in brain microtubules? Decoherence and

biological feasibility," Physical Reviews E, 65, 061901.• Hameroff, S. (2006) "Consciousness, neurobiology and quantum mechanics," In: The Emerging Physics of

Consciousness, (Ed.) Tuszynski, J.

See also• Roger Penrose• Henry Stapp• Evan Harris Walker• Consciousness causes collapse• Mind Science Foundation• What Is Life?• Quantum Aspects of Life (book)• Quantum biology• Orch-OR

Further reading• Stuart Hameroff with Conrad Schneiker, Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular Consciousness and Nanotechnology,

Elsevier-North Holland, 1987. This work predates the quantum Orch-OR hypothesis; still of interest. Online atauthor's site [2]

• Hameroff, Kaszniak, Scott, (eds), Toward a Science of Consciousness, MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-08249-7, LoCOP411.T68 1996. papers from the first Tucson conference on study of consciousness. Further volumes in theseries exist.

• Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, Oxford, ISBN0-19-853978-9, LoC Q335.P416 1994. This discusses the Orch-OR theory.

Stuart Hameroff 16

External links• Hameroff's "Quantum Consciousness" site [3]

• Center for consciousness studies homepage [1]

• Quantum-Mind [4]

References[1] http:/ / thesciencenetwork. org/ programs/ beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/ session-4-1[2] http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org/ ultimatecomputing. html[3] http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org/[4] http:/ / www. quantum-mind. co. uk

Holonomic brain theoryThe holonomic brain theory, originated by psychologist Karl Pribram and initially developed in collaboration withphysicist David Bohm, is a model for human cognition that is drastically different from conventionally acceptedideas: Pribram and Bohm posit a model of cognitive function as being guided by a matrix of neurological waveinterference patterns situated temporally between holographic Gestalt perception and discrete, affective, quantumvectors derived from reward anticipation potentials.Pribram was originally struck by the similarity of the hologram idea and Bohm's idea of the implicate order inphysics, and contacted him for collaboration. In particular, the fact that information about an image point isdistributed throughout the hologram, such that each piece of the hologram contains some information about theentire image, seemed suggestive to Pribram about how the brain could encode memories.[1] . Pribram wasencouraged in this line of speculation by the fact that DeValois and DeValois[2] had found that "the spatial frequencyencoding displayed by cells of the visual cortex was best described as a Fourier transform of the input pattern."[3]

This holographic idea led to the coining of the term "holonomic" to describe the idea in wider contexts than justholograms.

Lens-defined model of brain functionIn this model, each sense functions as a lens, refocusing wave patterns either by perceiving a specific pattern orcontext as swirls, or by discerning discrete grains or quantum units. David Bohm has said that if you take the lensesaway, what you are left with is a hologram.According to Pribram and Bohm, "future orientation" is the essence of cognitive function, which they have attemptedto define through use of the Fourier theorem and quantum mechanical formulae. According to Pribram, the tuning ofwave frequency in cells of the primary visual cortex plays a role in visual imaging, while such tuning in the auditorysystem has been well established for decades. Pribram and colleagues also assert that similar tuning occurs in thesomatosensory cortex.Pribram distinguishes between propagative nerve impulses on the one hand, and slow potentials (hyperpolarizations,steep polarizations) that are essentially static. At this temporal interface, he indicates, the wave interferences formholographic patterns.Pribram has written, "What the data suggest is that there exists in the cortex, a multidimensional holographic-like process serving as an attractor or set point toward which muscular contractions operate to achieve a specified environmental result. The specification has to be based on prior experience (of the species or the individual) and stored in holographic-like form. Activation of the store involves patterns of muscular contractions (guided by basal ganglia, cerebellar, brain stem and spinal cord) whose sequential operations need only to satisfy the 'target' encoded in the image of achievement much as the patterns of sequential operations of heating and cooling must meet the

Holonomic brain theory 17

setpoint of the thermostat."

Quantum dynamics of free willAccording to this theory, waveforms, within the matrix of a distributed system, allow fluctuations taking place tocreate new patterns, according to Pribram, and the resulting dynamic potential can then organize new foci of activityoriented to the precipitation of strategic planning and exercise of free will.In a 1998 interview, Pribram addressed the understanding of cognitive potential, stating that, "(I)f you get into yourpotential mode, then new things can happen. But usually free will is conceived of in terms of how many constraintsare operating, and we have in statistics a notion of degrees of freedom. I think our will essentially is constrained,more or less. We have so many degrees of freedom, and the more degrees of freedom we have, the more we feel free,and we have freedom of choice."These so-called "quantum minds" are still debated among scientists and philosophers, and there are actually anumber of different theories—not one—that have been suggested. Notable proponents of various quantum mindtheories are philosopher David Chalmers and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose. Cosmologist Max Tegmark is anotable opponent of the various quantum mind theories. Tegmark wrote the well-known paper, "Problem withQuantum Mind Theory [4]," which demonstrates certain problems with Chalmers' and Penrose's ideas on the subject.

See also• Consciousness• Evolutionary neuroscience• Gamma wave• Sensory integration dysfunction• Holographic memory• Implicate and Explicate Order according to David Bohm• Wikibook on consciousness

References• Karen K. DeValois, Russell L. DeValois, and W. W. Yund. "Responses of Striate Cortex Cells to Grating and

Checkerboard Patterns", Journal of Physiology, vol 291, 483-505, 1979.• Russel L. DeValois and Karen K. DeValois, "Spatial vision", Ann. Rev. Psychol, 31, 309-41, (1980)• Paul Pietsch, "Shuffle Brain", Harper's, May, 1972, online [5]

• Paul Pietsch, Shufflebrain: The Quest for the Hologramic Mind, Houghton-Mifflin, 1981, ISBN 0-395-29480-0.2nd edition 1996: online [6]: Shufflebrain: The Quest of Hologramic Mind: an in-depth but non-technical look atexperiments on the neural hologram

• Karl H. Pribram, "The Implicate Brain", in B. J. Hiley and F. David Peat, (eds) Quantum Implications: Essays inHonour of David Bohm, Routledge, 1987 ISBN 0-415-06960-2

• --- 'Holonomic Brain Theory and Motor Gestalts: Recent Experimental Results', (1997)• Michael Talbot, "The Holographic Universe" 1991, HarperCollins

Holonomic brain theory 18

External links• "Holonomic brain theory", [7] Article in Scholarpedia by Karl Pribram, Georgetown University, Washington, DC• ACSA2000.net [8] - 'Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and more conventional

models of neuronal computation', Jeff Prideaux• NIH.gov [9] - 'Concept-matching in the brain depends on serotonin and gamma-frequency shifts' M. B. Bayly,

Medical Hypotheses Vol 65, No 1, pp 149-51, 2005• ReutersHealth.com [10] - 'Celebrity photos prompt memory study breakthrough: Scientists at two California

universities have isolated single neurons responsible for holding the memory of an image' (June 23, 2005)• ToeQuest.com [11] - 'Holonomic Brain Theory: Holographic Theory offers answers for two main paradoxes,

Nature of mind and Non-locality'• TWM.co.nz [12] - 'The Holographic Brain: Karl Pribram, Ph.D. interview', Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove (1998)

References[1] Pribram, 1987[2] DeValois and DeValois, 1980[3] Pribram, 1987[4] http:/ / www. sustainedaction. org/ Explorations/ problem_with_quantum_mind_theory. htm[5] http:/ / www. indiana. edu/ ~pietsch/ shufflebrain. html[6] http:/ / www. indiana. edu/ ~pietsch/ home. html[7] http:/ / www. scholarpedia. org/ article/ Holonomic_Brain_Theory[8] http:/ / www. acsa2000. net/ bcngroup/ jponkp/[9] http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ entrez/ query. fcgi?cmd=Retrieve& db=pubmed& dopt=Abstract& list_uids=15893132& query_hl=1[10] http:/ / www. reutershealth. com/ archive/ 2005/ 06/ 23/ eline/ links/ 20050623elin007. html[11] http:/ / www. toequest. com/ forum/ showthread. php?s=88e90cefda26ac1ea6440a97d7e4342f& p=2473#post2473[12] http:/ / twm. co. nz/ pribram. htm

Orch-OR 19

Orch- OROrch OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) is a theory of consciousness, which is the joint work of theoreticalphysicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Mainstream theories assume that consciousnessemerges from the brain, and focus particularly on complex computation at connections known as synapses that allowcommunication between brain cells (neurons). Orch OR combines approaches to the problem of consciousness fromthe radically different angles of mathematics, physics and anesthesia.Penrose and Hameroff initially developed their ideas quite separately from one another, and it was only in the 1990sthat they cooperated to produce the Orch OR theory. Penrose came to the problem from the view point ofmathematics and in particular Gödel’s theorem, while Hameroff approached it from a career in cancer research andanesthesia that gave him an interest in brain structures.

Gödel's Incompleteness TheoremIn 1931, the mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel proved that any theory capable of expressing elementaryarithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. Further to that, for any consistent formal theory that provescertain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.In his first book on consciousness, The Emperor's New Mind (1989), Penrose made Gödel's theorem the basis ofwhat quickly became an intensely controversial claim[1] . He argued that the theorem showed that the brain had theability to go beyond what could be achieved by axioms or formal systems. This would mean that the mind had someadditional function that was not based on algorithms (systems or rules of calculation). A computer is driven solely byalgorithms. Penrose asserted that the brain could perform functions that no computer could perform. He called thistype of functioning non-computable.

The quantum levelPenrose went on to consider what it was in the human brain that might not be driven by algorithms. The physical lawis described by algorithms, so it was not easy for Penrose to come up with physical properties or processes that arenot described by them. He was forced to look to quantum theory for a plausible candidate.In quantum theory, the fundamental units, the quanta, are in some respects quite unlike objects that are encounteredin the large scale world described by classical physics. When sufficiently isolated from the environment, they can beviewed as waves. However these are not the same as matter waves, such as waves in the sea. The quantum waves areessentially waves of probability, the varying probability of finding a particle at some specific position. (Theseprobabilities apply to other states of the particle, such as its momentum, but for the sake of simplicity we will refer toposition.) The peak of the wave indicates the location with maximum probability of a particle being found there. Thedifferent possible positions of the particle are referred to as superpositions or quantum superpositions. We arespeaking here of the isolated form of the quanta. When the quanta are the subject of measurements or of interactionwith the environment, the wave characteristic is lost, and a particle is found at a specific point. This change iscommonly referred to as the collapse of the wave function.When the collapse happens, the choice of position for the particle is random. This is a drastic departure fromclassical physics. There is no cause-and-effect process, and no system of algorithms that can describe the choice ofposition for the particle.This provided Penrose with a candidate for the physical basis of the suggested non-computable process that heproposed as possibly existing in the brain. However, this was not the end of his problems. He had identifiedsomething in physics that was not based on algorithms, but at the same time, randomness was not a promising basisfor mathematical understanding, the aspect of mind that Penrose particularly focused on.

Orch-OR 20

Objective reductionPenrose now proposed that existing ideas on wave function collapse might only apply to situations where the quantaare the subject of measurement or of interaction with the environment. He considered the case of quanta that are notthe subject of measurements or interactions, but remain isolated from the environment, and proposed that thesequanta may be subject to a different form of wave function collapse.In this area, Penrose draws on both Einstein's general theory of relativity, and on his own notions about the possiblestructure of spacetime[1] [2] . General relativity states that spacetime is curved by massive objects. Penrose, inseeking to reconcile relativity and quantum theory, has suggested that at the very small scale this curved spacetime isnot continuous, but constitutes a form of network.Penrose postulates that each quantum superposition has its own piece of spacetime curvature. According to histheory, these different bits of spacetime curvature are separated from one another, and constitute a form of blister inspacetime. Penrose further proposes a limit to the size of this spacetime blister. This is the tiny Planck scale of (10−35

m). Above this size, Penrose suggests that spacetime can be viewed as continuous, and that gravity starts to exert itsforce on the spacetime blister. This is suggested to become unstable above the Planck scale, and to collapse so as tochoose just one of the possible locations for the particle. Penrose calls this event objective reduction (OR), reductionbeing another word for wave function collapse.An important feature of Penrose's objective reduction is that the time to collapse is a function of the mass/energy ofthe object undergoing collapse. Thus the greater the superposition, the faster it will undergo OR, and vice versa. Tinysuperpositions, e.g. an electron separated from itself, if isolated from environment, would require 10 million years toreach OR threshold. An isolated one kilogram object (e.g. Schrödinger’s cat) would reach OR threshold in only 10−37

seconds. However objects somewhere between the scale of an electron and the scale of a cat could collapse within atimescale that was relevant to neural processing.The threshold for Penrose OR is given by the indeterminacy principle E=ħ/t, where E is the gravitational self-energyor the degree of spacetime separation given by the superpositioned mass, ħ is the reduced Planck constant, and t isthe time until OR occurs.There is no existing evidence for Penrose's objective reduction, but the theory is considered to be testable, and plansare in hand to carry out a relevant experiment [3] .From the point of view of consciousness theory, an essential feature of Penrose's objective reduction is that thechoice of states when objective reduction occurs is selected neither randomly, as are choices following measurementor decoherence, nor completely algorithmically. Rather, states are proposed to be selected by a 'non-computable'influence embedded in the fundamental level of spacetime geometry at the Planck scale.Penrose claimed that such information is Platonic, representing pure mathematical truth, aesthetic and ethical values.More than two thousand years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato had proposed such pure values and forms, but in anabstract realm. Penrose placed the Platonic realm at the Planck scale. This relates to Penrose's ideas concerning thethree worlds: physical, mental, and the Platonic mathematical world. In his theory, the physical world can be seen asthe external reality, the mental world as information processing in the brain and the Platonic world as the encryption,measurement, or geometry of fundamental spacetime that is claimed to support non-computational understanding.

The creation of the Orch OR modelWhen he wrote his first consciousness book, The Emperor's New Mind in 1989, Penrose lacked a detailed proposalfor how such quantum processes could be implemented in the brain. Subsequently, Hameroff read The Emperor’sNew Mind and suggested to Penrose that certain structures within brain cells (neurons) were suitable candidate sitesfor quantum processing and ultimately for consciousness[4] [5] . The Orch OR theory arose from the cooperation ofthese two scientists, and were developed in Penrose's second consciousness book Shadows of the Mind (1994)[2] .

Orch-OR 21

Hameroff's contribution to the theory derived from studying brain cells (neurons). His interest centred on thecytoskeleton, which provides an internal supportive structure for neurons, and particularly on the microtubules[5] ,which are the important component of the cytoskeleton. As neuroscience has progressed, the role of the cytoskeletonand microtubules has assumed greater importance. In addition to providing a supportive structure for the cell, theknown functions of the microtubules include transport of molecules including neurotransmitter molecules bound forthe synapses, and control of the cell's movement, growth and shape[5] .Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates to support quantum processing[5] . Microtubules aremade up of subunits of the protein, tubulin. Proteins constitute much of the driving machinery of living organisms.Proteins contain hydrophobic pockets. These pockets contain atoms with electrons called π electrons, which meanselectrons in the reactive outer part (outer shell) of the atom that are not bonded to other atoms. The tubulin proteinsubunits of the microtubules have hydrophobic pockets within two nanometres of one another. Hameroff claims thatthis is close enough for the π electrons of the tubulin to become quantum entangled [6] . Quantum entanglement is astate in which quantum particles can alter one another's properties instantaneously and at a distance, in a way whichwould not be possible, if they were large scale objects obeying the laws of classical as opposed to quantum physics.In the case of the electrons in the tubulin subunits of the microtubules, Hameroff has proposed that large numbers ofthese electrons can become involved in a state known as a Bose-Einstein condensate. These occur when largenumbers of quantum particles become locked in phase and exist as a single quantum object. These are quantumfeatures at a macroscopic scale, and Hameroff suggests that through a feature of this kind quantum activity, which isusually at a very tiny scale, could be boosted to be a large scale influence in the brain.Hameroff has proposed that condensates in microtubules in one neuron can link with microtubule condensates inother neurons and glial cells via gap junctions[7] [8] . In addition to the synaptic connections between brain cells, gapjunctions are a different category of connections, where the gap between the cells is sufficiently small for quantumobjects to cross it by means of a process known as quantum tunneling. Hameroff proposes that this tunneling allowsa quantum object, such as the Bose-Einstein condensates mentioned above, to cross into other neurons, and thusextend across a large area of the brain as a single quantum object.He further postulates that the action of this large-scale quantum feature is the source of the gamma synchronisationobserved in the brain, and sometimes viewed as a neural correlate of consciousness [9] . In support of the much morelimited theory that gap junctions are related to the gamma oscillation, Hameroff quotes a number of studies fromrecent years [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] .The Orch OR theory combines Penrose's hypothesis with respect to the Gödel theorem with Hameroff's hypothesiswith respect to microtubules. Together, Penrose and Hameroff have proposed that when condensates in the brainundergo an objective reduction of their wave function, that collapse connects to non-computational decisiontaking/experience embedded in the geometry of fundamental spacetime.The theory further proposes that the microtubules both influence and are influenced by the conventional activity atthe synapses between neurons. The Orch in Orch OR stands for orchestrated to give the full name of the theoryOrchestrated Objective Reduction. Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins,known as microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) influence or orchestrate the quantum processing of themicrotubules.

Objections to Orch ORPenrose's interpretation of Gödel's first incompleteness theorem is rejected by many philosophers, logicians and artificial intelligence (robotics) researchers[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] . A paper by the philosophers Rick Grush and Patricia Churchland attacking Penrose has received widespread attention within consciousness studies[28] . Solomon Feferman, a professor of mathematics, logic and philosophy has made more qualified criticisms[29] . He faults detailed points in Penrose's reasoning in his second book 'Shadows of the Mind', but says that he does not think that they undermine the main thrust of his argument. As a mathematician, he argues that mathematicians do not

Orch-OR 22

progress by computer-like or mechanistic search through proofs, but by trial-and-error reasoning, insight andinspiration, and that machines cannot share this approach with humans. However, he thinks that Penrose goes too farin his arguments. Feferman points out that everyday mathematics, as used in science, can in practice be formalised.He also rejects Penrose's platonism.The main objection to the Hameroff side of the theory is that any quantum feature in the environment of the brainwould undergo wave function collapse (reduction) as a result of interaction with the environment, far too quickly forit to have any influence on neural processes. The wave or superposition form of the quanta is referred to as beingquantum coherent. Interaction with the environment results in decoherence otherwise known as wave functioncollapse. It has been questioned as to how such quantum coherence could avoid rapid decoherence in the conditionsof the brain. With reference to this question, a paper by the physicist, Max Tegmark, refuting the Orch OR modeland published in the journal, Physical Review E is widely quoted[30] . Tegmark developed a model for time todecoherence, and from this calculated that microtubule quantum states could exist, but would be sustained for only100 femtoseconds at brain temperatures, far too brief to be relevant to neural processing. A recent paper by Engel etal. in Nature does indicate quantum coherent electrons as being functional in energy transfer within photosyntheticprotein, but the quantum coherence described lasts for 660 femtoseconds[31] rather than the 25 milliseconds requiredby Orch OR. This reinforces Tegmark's estimate for decoherence timescale of microtubules, which is comparable tothe observed coherence time in the photosynthetic complex.In their reply to Tegmark's paper, also published in Physical Review E, the physicists, Scott Hagan and JackTuszynski and Hameroff[32] [33] claimed that Tegmark did not address the Orch OR model, but instead a model ofhis own construction. This involved superpositions of quanta separated by 24 nm rather than the much smallerseparations stipulated for Orch OR. As a result, Hameroff's group claimed a decoherence time seven orders ofmagnitude greater than Tegmarks, but still well short of the 25 ms required if the quantum processing in the theorywas to be linked to the 40 Hz gamma synchrony, as Orch OR suggested. To bridge this gap, the group made a seriesof proposals. It was supposed that the interiors of neurons could alternate between liquid and gel states. In the gelstate, it was further hypothesized that the water electrical dipoles are orientated in the same direction, along the outeredge of the microtubule tubulin subunits. Hameroff et al. proposed that this ordered water could screen any quantumcoherence within the tubulin of the microtubules from the environment of the rest of the brain. Each tubulin also hasa tail extending out from the microtubules, which is negatively charged, and therefore attracts positively chargedions. It is suggested that this could provide further screening. Further to this, there was a suggestion that themicrotubules could be pumped into a coherent state by biochemical energy. Finally, it is suggested that theconfiguration of the microtubule lattice might be suitable for quantum error correction, a means of holding togetherquantum coherence in the face of environmental interaction.Most of the above mentioned putative augmentations of the Orch OR model are not undisputed. "Cortical dendritescontain largely A-lattice microtubules" is one of 20 testable predictions published by Hameroff in 1998[34] and itwas hypothesized that these A-lattice microtubules could perform topological quantum error correction. The lattertestable prediction had been actually already experimentally disproved in 1994 by Kikkawa et al., who showed thatall in vivo microtubules have B-lattice and a seam [35] [36] . Other peer-reviewed critiques of Orch OR have beenpublished in recent years. One of these is a paper published in PNAS by Reimers et al.[37] , who argue that thecondensates proposed in Orch OR would involve energies and temperatures that are not realistic in biologicalmaterial. Further papers by Georgiev point to a number of problems with Hameroff's proposals, including the lack ofexplanation for the probabilistic firing of the axonal synapses[38] , an error in the calculated number of tubulin dimersper cortical neuron[39] , and mismodeling of dendritic lamellar bodies (DLBs) discovered by De Zeeuw et al.[40] ,who showed that despite the fact that DLBs are stained by antibody against gap junctions, they are located tens ofmicrometers far away from actual gap junctions. Also it was shown that the proposed tubulin-bound GTP pumpingof quantum coherence cannot occur neither in stable microtubules[41] , nor in dynamically unstable microtubulesundergoing assembly/disassembly[42] .

Orch-OR 23

See also• Electromagnetic theories of consciousness• Holonomic brain theory• Many-minds interpretation• Quantum Aspects of Life (book)• Quantum mind• Roger Penrose (1999) Science and the Mind. Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics Public Lectures, May 12,

1999. [43]

• Quantum-Mind [4]

References[1] Penrose, Roger (1989). The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press. pp. 480.

ISBN 0-198-51973-7.[2] Penrose, Roger (1989). Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford University Press. pp. 457. ISBN

0-19-853978-9.[3] Marshall, W., Simon, C., Penrose, R., and Bouwmeester, D. (2003). " Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/

quant-ph/ 0210001)". Physical Review Letters 91: 130401. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.130401 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1103/ PhysRevLett.91. 130401). .

[4] Hameroff, S.R., and Watt, R.C. (1982). " Information processing in microtubules (http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org/ documents/informationprocessing_hameroff_000. pdf)". Journal of Theoretical Biology 98: 549-561. .

[5] Hameroff, S.R. (1987). Ultimate Computing (http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org/ ultimatecomputing. html). Elsevier. .[6] Hameroff, Stuart. " Quantum Consciousness (http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org)". . Retrieved November 10, 2009.[7] Hameroff, S.R. (2006). "The entwined mysteries of anesthesia and consciousness". Anesthesiology 105: 400-412.[8] Hameroff, S. (2009). "The “conscious pilot” - dendritic synchrony moves through the brain to mediate consciousness". Journal of Biological

Physics. doi: 10.1007/s10867-009-9148-x (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10867-009-9148-x).[9] Bennett, M.V.L., and Zukin, R.S. (2004). " Electrical Coupling and Neuronal Synchronization in the Mammalian Brain (http:/ / dx. doi. org/

10. 1016/ S0896-6273(04)00043-1)". Neuron 41: 495-511. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00043-1 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1016/S0896-6273(04)00043-1). .

[10] Buhl, D.L., Harris, K.D., Hormuzdi, S.G., Monyer, H., and Buzsaki, G. (2003). "Selective Impairment of Hippocampal Gamma Oscillationsin Connexin-36 Knock-Out Mouse In Vivo". Journal of Neuroscience 23: 1013-1018.

[11] Dermietzel, R. (1998). "Gap junction wiring: a `new' principle in cell-to-cell communication in the nervous system?". Brain ResearchReviews 26: 176-183.

[12] Draguhn, A., Traub, R.D., Schmitz, D., and Jefferys, J.G.R. (1998). "Electrical coupling underlies high-frequency oscillations in thehippocampus in vitro". Nature 394: 189-192.

[13] Fries, P., Schroder, J.-H., Roelfsema, P.R., Singer, W., and Engel, A.K. (2002). "Oscillatory Neuronal Synchronization in Primary VisualCortex as a Correlate of Stimulus Selection". Journal of Neuroscience 22: 3739-3754.

[14] Galarreta, M., and Hestrin, S. (1999). "A network of fast-spiking cells in the neocortex connected by electrical synapses". Nature 402:72-75.

[15] Gibson, J.R., Beierlein, M., and Connors, B.W. (1999). "Two networks of electrically coupled inhibitory neurons in neocortex". Nature 402:75-79.

[16] networks". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1662: 113-137.[17] oscillations". Brain Research Bulletin 62: 3-13.[18] Velazquez, J.L.P., and Carlen, P.L. (2000). "Gap junctions, synchrony and seizures". Trends in Neurosciences 23: 68-74.[19] Rozental, R., and de Carvalho, A.C.C. (2000). "Introduction". Brain Research Reviews 32: 1-2.[20] Maudlin, T. (1995). " Between The Motion And The Act... A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/

ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2396/ 2325)". Psyche 2. .[21] Klein, S.A. (1995). " Is Quantum Mechanics Relevant To Understanding Consciousness A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger

Penrose (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2397/ 2326)". Psyche 2. .[22] McCullough, D. (1995). " Can Humans Escape Gödel? A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/

ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2398/ 2327)". Psyche 2. .[23] Moravec, H. (1995). " Roger Penrose's Gravitonic Brains A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/

ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2399/ 2328)". Psyche 2. .[24] Baars, B.J. (1995). " Can Physics Provide a Theory of Consciousness? A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose (http:/ /

journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2401/ 2330)". Psyche 2. .

Orch-OR 24

[25] Chalmers, D.J. (1995). " Minds, Machines, And Mathematics A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose (http:/ / journalpsyche.org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2402/ 2331)". Psyche 2. .

[26] McCarthy, J. (1995). " Awareness and Understanding in Computer Programs A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose (http:/ /journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2403/ 2332)". Psyche 2. .

[27] McDermott, D. (1995). " Penrose is Wrong (http:/ / journalpsyche. org/ ojs-2. 2/ index. php/ psyche/ article/ view/ 2406/ 2335)". Psyche2. .

[28] Grush, R., Churchland, P.S. (1995). " Gaps in Penrose's toilings (http:/ / mind. ucsd. edu/ papers/ penrose/ penrose. pdf)". Journal ofConsciousness Studies 2 (1): 10-29. .

[29] Feferman, S. (1996). " Penrose's Gödelian argument (http:/ / math. stanford. edu/ ~feferman/ papers/ penrose. pdf)". Psyche 2: 21-32. .[30] Tegmark, M.. "Importance of quantum coherence in brain processes". Physical Review E 61: 4194–4206.[31] Engel, G.S., Calhoun, T.R., Read, E.L., Ahn, T.-K., Mancal, T., Cheng, Y.-C., Blankenship, R.E., and Fleming, G.R. (2007). "Evidence for

wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems". Nature 446: 782-786.[32] Hagan, S., Hameroff, S., and Tuszyński, J.. " Quantum Computation in Brain Microtubules? Decoherence and Biological Feasibility (http:/ /

arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0005025)". Physical Review E 65: 061901. .[33] Hameroff, S. (2006), "Consciousness, Neurobiology and Quantum Mechanics", in Tuszynski, Jack, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness,

Springer, pp. 193-253[34] Hameroff, S.R. (1998). " Quantum Computation In Brain Microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff "Orch OR" model of consciousness (http:/ /

www. quantumconsciousness. org/ penrose-hameroff/ quantumcomputation. html)". Philosophical Transactions Royal Society London (A)356: 1869-1896. .

[35] Kikkawa, M., Ishikawa, T., Nakata, T., Wakabayashi, T., Hirokawa, N. (1994). " Direct visualization of the microtubule lattice seam both invitro and in vivo (http:/ / jcb. rupress. org/ cgi/ content/ abstract/ 127/ 6/ 1965)". Journal of Cell Biology 127 (6): 1965-1971. doi:10.1083/jcb.127.6.1965 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1083/ jcb. 127. 6. 1965). .

[36] Kikkawa, M., Metlagel, Z. (2006). " A molecular "zipper" for microtubules (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1016/ j. cell. 2006. 12. 009)". Cell 127(7): 1302-1304. doi: doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.009 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ doi:10. 1016/ j. cell. 2006. 12. 009). .

[37] Reimers, J.R., McKemmish, L.K., McKenzie, R.H., Mark, A.E., and Hush, N.S. (2009). "Weak, strong, and coherent regimes of Fröhlichcondensation and their applications to terahertz medicine and quantum consciousness". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:4219-4224. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806273106 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 0806273106).

[38] Georgiev, D.D. (2007). " Falsifications of Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR model of consciousness and novel avenues for development ofquantum mind theory (http:/ / philsci-archive. pitt. edu/ archive/ 00003049/ )". NeuroQuantology 5 (1): 145-174. .

[39] Georgiev, D.D. (2009). " Remarks on the number of tubulin dimers per neuron and implications for Hameroff-Penrose Orch (http:/ /precedings. nature. com/ documents/ 3860/ version/ 1)". NeuroQuantology 7 (4): 677-679. .

[40] De Zeeuw, C.I., Hertzberg, E.L., Mugnaini, E.. "The dendritic lamellar body: A new neuronal organelle putatively associated withdendrodentritic gap junctions". Journal of Neuroscience 15: 1587-1604.

[41] Georgiev, D.D. (2009). " Tubulin-bound GTP can not pump microtubule coherence in stable microtubules. Towards a revision ofmicrotubule based quantum models of mind (http:/ / www. neuroquantology. com/ journal/ index. php/ nq/ article/ view/ 358)".NeuroQuantology 7 (4): 538-547. .

[42] McKemmish, L.K., Reimers, J.R., McKenzie, R.H., Mark, A.E., and Hush, N.S. (2009). " Penrose-Hameroff orchestratedobjective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible (http:/ / link. aps. org/ doi/ 10. 1103/ PhysRevE. 80.021912)". Physical Review E 80: 021912-021916. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1103/ PhysRevE. 80. 021912). .

[43] http:/ / online. kitp. ucsb. edu/ plecture/ penrose/

Roger Penrose 25

Roger Penrose

Sir Roger Penrose

Roger Penrose at Brookhaven Lab, 6 February 2007.

Born 8 August 1931Colchester, Essex, England

Residence United KingdomCanada (During WWII)

Nationality British

Fields Mathematical physicsMathematics

Institutions Bedford College, LondonSt John's College, CambridgePrinceton UniversitySyracuse UniversityKing’s College, LondonBirkbeck, University of LondonUniversity of Oxford

Alma mater University of CambridgeUniversity College LondonUniversity College School

Doctoral advisor John A. Todd

Other academic advisors William Hodge

Doctoral students Tristan NeedhamRichard JozsaRichard WardAndrew HodgesGeorge Burnett-StuartMatthew GinsbergAdam HelferLane P. HughstonPeter LawClaude LeBrunRoss MooreDuncan StoneTim PostonGeorge SparlingK. Paul TodAsghar Qadir

Roger Penrose 26

Known for Penrose tilingTwistor TheoryGeometry of spacetimeCosmic censorshipWeyl curvature hypothesisMoore-Penrose pseudoinverseNewman-Penrose formalismPenrose stairsPenrose inequalitiesOrch-OR

Influences Dennis W. Sciama

Influenced Michael AtiyahStuart Hameroff

Notable awards Wolf Prize (1988)Dirac Medal (1989)Copley Medal (2008)

Signature

NotesHe is the brother of Jonathan Penrose and Oliver Penrose, and son of Lionel Penrose. He is the nephew of Roland Penrose.

Sir Roger Penrose, OM, FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse BallProfessor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of WadhamCollege. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he sharedwith Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1] He is renowned for his work inmathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreationalmathematician and philosopher.

CareerBorn in Colchester, Essex, England, Roger Penrose is a son of Lionel S. Penrose and Margaret Leathes.[2] Penrose isthe brother of mathematician Oliver Penrose and correspondence chess grandmaster Jonathan Penrose. Penrose wasprecocious as a child.[3] He attended University College School. Penrose graduated with a first class degree inmathematics from University College London. In 1955, while still a student, Penrose reinvented the generalizedmatrix inverse (also known as Moore-Penrose inverse.[4] Penrose earned his Ph.D. at Cambridge (St John's College)in 1958, writing a thesis on "tensor methods in algebraic geometry" under algebraist and geometer John A. Todd. Hedevised and popularised the Penrose triangle in the 1950s, describing it as "impossibility in its purest form" andexchanged material with the artist M. C. Escher, whose earlier depictions of impossible objects partly inspired it. In1965 at Cambridge, Penrose proved that singularities (such as black holes) could be formed from the gravitationalcollapse of immense, dying stars.[5]

Roger Penrose 27

Oil painting by Urs Schmid (1995) of a Penrose tiling using fat andthin rhombus.

In 1967, Penrose invented the twistor theory whichmaps geometric objects in Minkowski space into the4-dimensional complex space with the metric signature(2,2). In 1969 he conjectured the cosmic censorshiphypothesis. This proposes (rather informally) that theuniverse protects us from the inherent unpredictabilityof singularities (such as the one in the centre of a blackhole) by hiding them from our view behind an eventhorizon. This form is now known as the "weakcensorship hypothesis"; in 1979, Penrose formulated astronger version called the "strong censorshiphypothesis". Together with the BKL conjecture andissues of nonlinear stability, settling the censorshipconjectures is one of the most important outstandingproblems in general relativity. Also from 1979 dates

Penrose's influential Weyl curvature hypothesis on the initial conditions of the observable part of the Universe andthe origin of the second law of thermodynamics.[6] Penrose wrote a paper on the Terrell rotation.

Roger Penrose is well known for his 1974 discovery of Penrose tilings, which are formed from two tiles that canonly tile the plane nonperiodically, and are the first tilings to exhibit fivefold rotational symmetry. Penrosedeveloped these ideas from the article Deux types fondamentaux de distribution statistique[7] (1938; an Englishtranslation Two Basic Types of Statistical Distribution) of Czech geographer, demographer and statistician JaromírKorčák. In 1984, such patterns were observed in the arrangement of atoms in quasicrystals. Another noteworthycontribution is his 1971 invention of spin networks, which later came to form the geometry of spacetime in loopquantum gravity. He was influential in popularizing what are commonly known as Penrose diagrams (causaldiagrams). In 2004 Penrose released The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, a1,099-page book aimed at giving a comprehensive guide to the laws of physics. He has proposed a novelinterpretation of quantum mechanics.[8] Penrose is the Francis and Helen Pentz Distinguished (visiting) Professor ofPhysics and Mathematics at Pennsylvania State University.[9]

Penrose is married to Vanessa Thomas, with whom he has one child. He has three sons from a previous marriage toAmerican Joan Isabel Wedge (1959).

Physics and consciousnessPenrose has written controversial books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal)consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explainthe phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose hints at the characteristics this new physics may have and specifies therequirements for a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics (what he terms correct quantum gravity, CQG).He claims that the present computer is unable to have intelligence because it is an algorithmically deterministicsystem. He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the mind are completely algorithmic and canthus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer—this is in contrast to views, e.g., artificial intelligence, thatthought can be simulated. Penrose notes that a process can conceivably be deterministic without being algorithmic.This is based on claims that consciousness transcends formal logic systems because things such as the insolubility ofthe halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem restrict an algorithmically based logic from traits such asmathematical insight. Penrose believes that such deterministic non-algorithmic processes may come in play in thequantum mechanical wave function reduction, and may be harnessed by the brain. These claims were originallymade by the philosopher John Lucas of Merton College, Oxford.

Roger Penrose 28

In 1994, Penrose followed up The Emperor's New Mind with Shadows of the Mind and in 1997 with The Large, theSmall and the Human Mind, further updating and expanding his theories. Penrose's views on the human thoughtprocess are not widely accepted in scientific circles. According to Marvin Minsky, because people can construe falseideas to be factual, the process of thinking is not limited to formal logic. Furthermore, he says that artificialintelligence (AI) programs can also conclude that false statements are true, so error is not unique to humans.Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have speculated that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects inmicrotubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). But Max Tegmark, in a paper inPhysical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than thedecoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000. The reception of the paper is summed up by this statementin his support: "Physicists outside the fray, such as IBM's John A. Smolin, say the calculations confirm what theyhad suspected all along. 'We're not working with a brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that thebrain evolved quantum behavior', he says." The Tegmark paper has been widely cited by critics of thePenrose-Hameroff proposal. It has been claimed by Hameroff to be based on a number of incorrect assumptions (seelinked paper below from Hameroff, Hagan and Tuszyński), but Tegmark in turn has argued that the critique isinvalid (see rejoinder link below). In particular, Hameroff points out the peculiarity that Tegmark's formula for thedecoherence time includes a factor of in the numerator, meaning that higher temperatures would lead to longerdecoherence times. Tegmark's rejoinder keeps the factor of for the decoherence time.

Religious viewsPenrose has stated that he does not hold to any religious doctrine.[10] In the film A Brief History of Time he stated:"There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance.Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along–it's a bit as though it just sort ofcomputes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing. I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful wayof looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we havevery little inkling of at the moment."[11]

Awards and honours

Roger Penrose during a lecture, explaining thetessellation in the MC Escher lithograph Circle

Limit IV

Penrose has been awarded many prizes for his contributions to science.He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1972. In1975, Stephen Hawking and Penrose were jointly awarded theEddington Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1985, he wasawarded the Royal Society Royal Medal. Along with StephenHawking, he was awarded the prestigious Wolf Foundation Prize forPhysics in 1988. In 1989 he was awarded the Dirac Medal and Prize ofthe British Institute of Physics. In 1990 Penrose was awarded theAlbert Einstein Medal for outstanding work related to the work ofAlbert Einstein by the Albert Einstein Society. In 1991, he wasawarded the Naylor Prize of the London Mathematical Society. From1992 to 1995 he served as President of the International Society onGeneral Relativity and Gravitation [12]. In 1994, Penrose was knightedfor services to science.[13] In 1998, he was elected Foreign Associate ofthe United States National Academy of Sciences. In 2000 he wasappointed to the Order of Merit. In 2004 he was awarded the DeMorgan Medal for his wide and original contributions to mathematical

Roger Penrose 29

physics. To quote the citation from the London Mathematical Society [14]:His deep work on General Relativity has been a major factor in our understanding of black holes. Hisdevelopment of Twistor Theory has produced a beautiful and productive approach to the classical equations ofmathematical physics. His tilings of the plane underlie the newly discovered quasi-crystals.

In 2005 Penrose was awarded an honorary doctorate (Honoris Causa) by Warsaw University and KatholiekeUniversiteit Leuven (Belgium), and in 2006 by the University of York. In 2008 Penrose was awarded the CopleyMedal. He is also a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association and one of the patrons of theOxford University Scientific Society.

Works• Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity (1972, ISBN 0-89871-005-7)• Spinors and Space-Time: Volume 1, Two-Spinor Calculus and Relativistic Fields (with Wolfgang Rindler, 1987)

ISBN 0-521-33707-0 (paperback)• Spinors and Space-Time: Volume 2, Spinor and Twistor Methods in Space-Time Geometry (with Wolfgang

Rindler, 1988) (reprint), ISBN 0-521-34786-6 (paperback)• The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics (1989, ISBN 0-14-014534-6

(paperback); it received the Rhone-Poulenc science book prize in 1990)• Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (1994, ISBN 0-19-853978-9

(hardback))• The Nature of Space and Time (with Stephen Hawking, 1996, ISBN 0-691-03791-4 (hardback), ISBN

0-691-05084-8 (paperback))• The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind (with Abner Shimony, Nancy Cartwright, and Stephen Hawking,

1997, ISBN 0-521-56330-5 (hardback), ISBN 0-521-65538-2 (paperback), Canto edition: ISBN 0-521-78572-3)• White Mars or, The Mind Set Free (with Brian W. Aldiss, 1999, ISBN 978-0-316-85243-2 (hardback))• The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (2004, ISBN 0-224-04447-8 (hardcover),

ISBN 0-09-944068-7 (paperback))Penrose also wrote forewords to Quantum Aspects of Life and Zee's book Fearful Symmetry.

See also• Orch-OR• Quantum Aspects of Life (book)

References• Ferguson, Kitty (1991). Stephen Hawking: Quest For A Theory of Everything. Franklin Watts. ISBN

0-553-29895-X.• Misner, Charles; Thorne, Kip S. & Wheeler, John Archibald (1973). Gravitation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

ISBN 0-7167-0344-0.; see Box 34.2.

Roger Penrose 30

External links• Penrose's new theory "Aeons Before the Big Bang?":

• Original 2005 lecture: "Before the Big Bang? A new perspective on the Weyl curvature hypothesis" [15] (IsaacNewton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge, Nov 11, 2005).

• Original publication: "Before the Big Bang: an outrageous new perspective and its implications for particlephysics". [16] Proceedings of EPAC 2006. Edinburgh. 2759–2762 (cf. also Hill, C.D. & Nurowski, P. (2007)"On Penrose's 'Before the Big Bang' ideas" [17]. Ithaca)

• Revised 2009 lecture: "Aeons Before the Big Bang?" [18] (Georgia Institute of Technology, Center forRelativistic Astrophysics)

• BBC interview [19] on the new theory• Roger Penrose on The Forum [20]

• Penrose on sidestepping reason [21]

• O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., "Roger Penrose [22]", MacTutor History of Mathematics archive.• Hilary Putnam's review of Penrose's 'Shadows of the Mind' claiming that Penrose's use of Godel's Incompleteness

Theorem is fallacious [23]

• Beyond the Doubting of a Shadow: A Reply to Commentaries on Shadows of the Mind [24]

• Penrose Tiling found in Islamic Architecture [25]

• Two theories for the formation of quasicrystals resembling Penrose tilings [26]

• Tegmark, Max. 2000. "The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes [27]". Physical Review E. vol61. pp. 4194–4206.• "Biological feasibility of quantum states in the brain [28]" -(a disputation of Tegmark's result by Hagan,

Hameroff, and Tuszyński)• Tegmarks's rejoinder to Hagan et al. [29]

• "Toilet Paper Plagiarism" [30] – D. Trull about Penrose's lawsuit concerning the use of his Penrose tilings on toiletpaper

• Roger Penrose: A Knight on the tiles (Plus magazine) [31]

• Penrose's Gifford Lecture biography [32]

• Quantum-Mind [4]

• Audio: Roger Penrose in conversation on the BBC World Service discussion show [33] The Forum

References[1] Penrose, R (2005), The Road to Reality: A Complete guide to the Laws of the Universe, Vintage Books, ISBN 0-099-44068-7[2] Penrose and his father shared mathematical concepts with Dutch graphic artist M. C. Escher which were incorporated into a number of pieces,

including Waterfall, which is based on the 'Penrose triangle', and Up and Down.[3] J. C. Raven's 1936 MSc thesis features introspections from Penrose, aged four and two thirds, as he solved what are now known as Raven's

Progressive Matrices, c.f. note 52 of Watt, D. C. (1998). Lionel Penrose, F.R.S. (1898-1972) and Eugenics: Part One (http:/ / links. jstor. org/sici?sici=0035-9149(199801)52:1<137:LPF(AE>2. 0. CO;2-#). Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 52, 137-151

[4] Penrose, R. "A Generalized Inverse for Matrices" Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 51, 406-413, 1955)[5] Ferguson, 1991: 66[6] R. Penrose (1979). "Singularities and Time-Asymmetry". in S. W. Hawking and W. Israel. General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey.

Cambridge University Press. pp. 581–638.[7] Jaromír Korčák (1938): Deux types fondamentaux de distribution statistique. Prague, Comité d’organisation, Bull. de l'Institute Int'l de

Statistique, vol. 3, pp. 295–299.[8] " If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at once, Why Can't You? (http:/ / discovermagazine. com/ 2005/ jun/ cover/

article_view?b_start:int=0& -C=)". . Retrieved 2008-10-27.[9] " Dr. Roger Penrose at Penn State University (http:/ / www. phys. psu. edu/ people/ display/ index. html?person_id=233& mode=contact. )". .

Retrieved 2007-07-09.[10] http:/ / www. samharris. org/ site/ book_letter_to_christian_nation/[11] http:/ / www. godresources. org/ intelligent_design5. shtml

Roger Penrose 31

[12] http:/ / grg. maths. qmul. ac. uk/ grgsoc/[13] Official announcement knighthood. (http:/ / www. gazettes-online. co. uk/ ViewPDF. aspx?pdf=53696& geotype=London& gpn=2&

type=ArchivedSupplementPage& exact=Roger Penrose) The London Gazette. 11 June 1994.[14] http:/ / www. lms. ac. uk/ activities/ prizes_com/ citations04. html[15] http:/ / www. newton. ac. uk/ webseminars/ pg+ ws/ 2005/ gmr/ gmrw04/ 1107/ penrose/ frames. html[16] http:/ / accelconf. web. cern. ch/ AccelConf/ e06/ PAPERS/ THESPA01. PDF[17] http:/ / arxiv. org/ pdf/ 0710. 3879v2[18] http:/ / smartech. gatech. edu/ handle/ 1853/ 27632[19] http:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0[20] http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ worldservice/ programmes/ 2009/ 03/ 000000_forum. shtml[21] http:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=xiYDc1LA0I4& feature=user[22] http:/ / www-history. mcs. st-andrews. ac. uk/ Biographies/ Penrose. html[23] http:/ / www. ams. org/ bull/ pre-1996-data/ 199507/ 199507015. pdf[24] http:/ / psyche. csse. monash. edu. au/ v2/ psyche-2-23-penrose. html[25] http:/ / www. sciencenews. org/ articles/ 20070224/ mathtrek. asp[26] http:/ / www. sciencenews. org/ sn_arch/ 10_12_96/ bob1. htm[27] http:/ / www. arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9907009[28] http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org/ pdfs/ decoherence. pdf[29] http:/ / space. mit. edu/ home/ tegmark/ brain. html[30] http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20050312084035/ http:/ / www. parascope. com/ articles/ slips/ fs_151. htm[31] http:/ / plus. maths. org/ issue18/ features/ penrose/ index. html[32] http:/ / www. giffordlectures. org/ Author. asp?AuthorID=254[33] http:/ / www. bbc. co. uk/ worldservice/ documentaries/ 2009/ 04/ 090427_theforum_260409. shtml

Karl H. Pribram

Neuropsychology

Mind and BrainPortal

Karl H. Pribram (born February 25, 1919 in Vienna, Austria) is a professor at Georgetown University , and anemeritus professor of psychology and psychiatry at Stanford University and Radford University. Board-certified as aneurosurgeon, Pribram did pioneering work on the definition of the limbic system, the relationship of the frontalcortex to the limbic system, the sensory-specific "association" cortex of the parietal and temporal lobes, and theclassical motor cortex of the human brain. To the general public, Pribram is best known for his development of theholonomic brain model of cognitive function and his contribution to ongoing neurological research into memory,emotion, motivation and consciousness. American best selling author Katherine Neville is his significant other.

Karl H. Pribram 32

Holonomic modelPribram's holonomic model of brain processing states that, in addition to the circuitry accomplished by the largefiber tracts in the brain, processing also occurs in webs of fine fiber branches (for instance, dendrites) that formwebs. This type of processing is properly described by Gabor quanta of information, wavelets that are used inquantum holography, the basis of fMRI, PET scans and other image processing procedures.Gabor wavelets are windowed Fourier transforms that convert complex spatial (and temporal) patterns intocomponent waves whose amplitudes at their intersections become reinforced or diminished. Fourier processes are thebasis of holography. Holograms can correlate and store a huge amount of information - and have the advantage thatthe inverse transform returns the results of correlation into the spatial and temporal patterns that guide us innavigating our universe.David Bohm had suggested that were we to view the cosmos without the lenses that outfit our telescopes, theuniverse would appear to us as a hologram. Pribram extended this insight by noting that were we deprived of thelenses of our eyes and the lens like processes of our other sensory receptors, we would be immersed in holographicexperiences.

Other contributionsIn the late 1940s and early 1950s, Pribram's neurobehavioral experiments established the composition of the limbicsystem and the executive functions of the prefrontal cortex. Pribram also discovered the sensory specific systems ofthe association cortex, and showed that these systems operate to organize the choices we make among sensorystimuli, not the sensing of the stimuli themselves.

Bibliography• Miller, George; Galanter, Eugene, & Pribram, Karl (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston. ISBN 0030100755.• Pribram, Karl H. (1969). Brain and behaviour. Hammondsworth: Penguin Books. ISBN 0140805214.• Pribram, Karl (1971). Languages of the brain; experimental paradoxes and principles in neuropsychology.

Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0135227305.• Pribram, Karl; Gill, Morton M. (1976). Freud's "Project" re-assessed: preface to contemporary cognitive theory

and neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0465025692.• Pribram, Karl (1991). Brain and perception: holonomy and structure in figural processing. Hillsdale, N. J.:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0898599954.• Globus, Gordon G.; Pribram, Karl H., & Vitiello, Giuseppe (2004-09-30). Brain And Being: At The Boundary

Between Science, Philosophy, Language, And Arts (Advances in Consciousness Research, 58). John BenjaminsPublishing Co.. ISBN 158811550X.

• Pribram, Karl (ed.) (1969). On the biology of learning. New York: Harcourt Brace & World. ISBN 0155675206.• Pribram, Karl, & Broadbent, Donald (eds.) (1970). Biology of memory. New York: Academic Press. ISBN

0125643500.• Pribram, K. H., & Luria, A. R. (eds.) (1973). Psychophysiology of the frontal lobes. New York: Academic Press.

ISBN 0125643403.• Pribram, Karl, & Isaacson, Robert L. (eds.) (1975). The Hippocampus. New York: Plenum Press. ISBN

0306375354.• Pribram, Karl (ed.) (1993). Rethinking neural networks: quantum fields and biological data. Hillsdale, N. J.:

Erlbaum. ISBN 0805814663.• Pribram, Karl (ed.) (1994). Origins: brain and self organization. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN

0805817867.

Karl H. Pribram 33

• King, Joseph, & Pribram, Karl (eds.) (1995). Scale in conscious experience: Is the brain too important to be leftto the specialists to study?. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0805821783.

• Pribram, Karl, &K ing, Joseph (eds.) (1996). Learning as self-organization. Mahwah, N. J.: L. ErlbaumAssociates. ISBN 080582586X.

• Pribram, Karl (ed.) (1998). Brain and values: is a biological science of values possible. Mahwah, N. J.: LawrenceErlbaum Associates. ISBN 0805831541.

• Pribram, Karl (2004). "Brain and Mathematics [1]". Pari Center for New Learning. Retrieved 2007-10-25.• "Like Bohm, Karl Pribram sees the holographic nature of reality [2]". The Ground of Faith. October 2003.

Retrieved 2007-10-25.• Mishlove, Jeffrey (1998). "The Holographic Brain with Karl Pribram, MA; Ph.D. [12]". TWM.co.nz. Retrieved

2007-10-25.

External links• "The Holographic Brain" [3] - Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove interviews Karl Pribham• "Comparison between Holographic Brain Theory and conventional models of neuronal computation" [8] –

academic paper on Pribham's work• "Pribram Receives Havel Prize For His Work in Neuroscience" [4] – news article• Global Lens Interview [5] (Video)• [4] quantum mind

References[1] http:/ / www. paricenter. com/ library/ papers/ pribram01. php[2] http:/ / homepages. ihug. co. nz/ ~thegroundoffaith/ issues/ 2003-10/ pribram. html[3] http:/ / homepages. ihug. co. nz/ ~sai/ pribram. htm[4] http:/ / www. katherineneville. com/ karl_havel_prize. htm[5] http:/ / www. immaginehdv. com/ detail. php?c=2& i=b90c95bf29b3909ced9b95a10d865cd329684d33

Quantum biology 34

Quantum biologyQuantum biology seeks to investigate the life sciences[1] in terms of quantum theory. This includes attempts tostudy biological processes and dynamic molecular structures in terms of quantum mechanics (QM). For example,investigations of dynamic molecular structure and energy transfer at the quantum level have credibility if theyexplain macroscopic biological observables that otherwise are inexplicable [2] . Quantum biochemistry and quantumstudies of photosynthetic processes/photosynthesis have produced significant, verifiable results. In particular thestep-wise, quantum release of protons upon photon absorption linked to water `splitting' in photosynthesis requires aquantum theoretical explanation involving complex photosystem II. Furthermore, both experimental and theoreticalstudies support the involvement of quantum tunnelling mechanisms in enzyme reactions. Fundamental biologicalprocesses that involve the conversion of energy into forms that are usable for chemical transformations are quantummechanical in nature. These processes involve chemical reactions, light absorption, formation of excited electronicstates, transfer of excitation energy, and the transfer of electrons and protons (hydrogen ions) in chemical processessuch as photosynthesis and cellular respiration.[3] . Quantum biology uses mathematical computation to modelbiological interactions in light of QM effects [4] . The need for a quantum theoretical study of genetic systems hasbeen pointed out by Erwin Schrodinger in 1946, and followed up with a detailed formal approach to QuantumGenetics by Robert Rosen in 1961. An unresolved and still controversial issue in this field is that of non-trivial (i.e.not limited to properties of molecules) role of quantum effects in biological systems [5] [6] [7] . However recentstudies of transcription are consistent with quantum information processing of coherent duplex DNA states by thetranscriptase [8] [9] .

StudiesSome of the biological phenomena that have been studied in terms of quantum processes are the absorbance offrequency-specific radiation (i.e., photosynthesis[10] and vision)[11] ; the conversion of chemical energy intomotion[12] ; magnetoreception in animals[13] and brownian motors in many cellular processes.[14] The field has alsobeen active in researching QM analysis of magnetic fields and bird navigation,[15] and may possibly shed light onCircadian rhythms in many organisms.[16]

References• W.G. Cooper, "Evidence for transcriptase quantum processing implies entanglement and decoherence of

superposition proton states." BioSystems, 97, pp. 73-89, 2009.• W.G. Cooper, "Necessity of quantum coherence to account for the spectrum of time-dependent mutations

exhibited bacteriophage T4." Biochem. Genet. 47, 892, 2009; doi:10.1007/s10528-009-9293-8.• Derek Abbott, Julio Gea-Banacloche, Paul C. W. Davies, Stuart Hameroff, Anton Zeilinger, Jens Eisert, Howard

M. Wiseman, Sergey M. Bezrukov, and Hans Frauenfelder, "Plenary debate: quantum effects in biology―trivialor not?" Fluctuation and Noise Letters, 8(1), pp. C5-C26, 2008.

• F. H. Thaheld, "An interdisciplinary approach to certain fundamental issues in the fields of physics and biology:towards a unified theory" BioSystems, 80, pp. 41-56, 2005.

• J. Gilmore and R. H. McKenzie, "Spin boson models for quantum decoherence of electronic excitations ofbiomolecules and quantum dots in a solvent," Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 17(10), pp. 1735-1746,2005.

• S. Hameroff and J. Tuszynski, "Quantum states in proteins and protein assemblies: the essence of life?" Proc.SPIE Fluctuations and Noise in Biological, Biophysical, and Biomedical Systems II, Eds. D. Abbott, S.M.Bezrukov, A. Der, and A. Sánchez, 5467, pp. 27-41, Canary Islands, 2004. p

Quantum biology 35

• P.C.W. Davies, "Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life?" BioSystems, 78, pp. 69-79, 2004.• A. F. Rocha, E. Massad and F. A. B. Coutinho, "Can the human brain do quantum computing?" Medical

Hypotheses, 63, pp. 895-899, 2004.• A. U. Igamberdiev, "Quantum computation, non-demolition measurements, and reflective control in living

systems," BioSystems, 77, pp. 47-56, 2004.• S. R. Hameroff, "A new theory of the origin of cancer: quantum coherent entanglement, centrioles, mitosis, and

differentiation," BioSystems, 77, pp. 119-136, 2004.• Z.-X. Liang and J. P. Klinman, "Structural bases of hydrogen tunneling in enzymes: progress and puzzles,"

Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 14, pp. 468-655, 2004.• P.C.W. Davies, "Emergent biological principles and the computational properties of the universe," Complexity,

10(2), pp. 11-15, 2004.• Erwin Schrodinger. What is Life ?,Cambridge, 1946.• C. W. Smith, "Quanta and coherence effects in water and living systems," The Journal of Alternative and

Complementary Medicine, 10(1), pp. 69-78, 2004.• L. Hackermuller, S. Uttenthaler, K. Hornberger, E. Reiger, B. Brezger, A. Zeilinger, and M. Arndt, "Wave nature

of biomolecules and fluorofullerenes," Physical Review Letters, 91(9), 090408, 2003.• O. Nariz, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, "Quantum interference experiments with large molecules," American

Journal of Physics, 71(4), pp. 319-325, 2003.• S. Axelsson, "Perspectives on handedness, life and physics," Medical Hypotheses, 61(2), pp. 267-274, 2003.• S. R. Hameroff, A. Nip, M. Porter, and J. Tuszynski, "Conduction pathways in microtubules, biological quantum

computation, and consciousness," BioSystems, 64, pp. 146-168, 2002.• V. Helms, "Electronic excitations of biomolecules studied by quantum chemistry," Current Opinion in Structural

Biology, 12, pp. 169-175, 2002.• S. M. Hitchcock, "Photosynthetic quantum computers," arXiv:quant-ph/0108087, 2001.• V. Gogonea, D. Suarez, A. van der Vaart and K. M. Merz, "New developments in applying quantum mechanics to

proteins," Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 11, pp. 217-223, 2001.• M. Kameyama, "Quantum cellular biology: a curious example of a cat," Medical Hypotheses, 57(3), pp. 358-360,

2001.• M. Tegmark, "Why the brain is probably not a quantum computer," Information Sciences, 128, pp. 155-179,

2000.• K. Matsuno, "Is there a biology of quantum information? ," BioSystems, 55, pp. 39-46, 2000.• M. Tegmark, "The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes," Physical Review E, 61(4), pp.

4194-4206, 2000.• H. S. Green, "Measurement and the observer," Chapter 8 in Information Theory and Quantum Physics: Physical

Foundations for Understanding the Conscious Process, Springer, pp. 172-209, 2000.• E. Bieberich, "Probing quantum coherence in a biological system by means of DNA amplification," BioSystems,

57, pp. 109-124, 2000.• A. Kohen and J. Klinman, "Hydrogen tunneling in biology," Chemistry and Biology, 6, pp. R191-R198, 1999.• W. J. Meggs, "Biological homing: hypothesis for a quantum effect that leads to the existence of life," Medical

Hypotheses, 51, pp. 503-506, 1998.

Quantum biology 36

• M. Tegmark, "Does the universe in fact contain almost no information?" Foundations of Physics Letters, 9(1), pp.25-42, 1996.

• S. Hameroff and R. Penrose, "Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model forconsciousness," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 40, pp. 453-480, 1996.

• D. V. Nanopoulos, "Theory of brain function, quantum mechanics and superstrings," arXiv: hep-ph/950374,1995.

Further reading• Atomistic approaches in modern biology : from quantum chemistry to molecular simulations by Markus Reiher; L

Bertini. Berlin ; New York : Springer, 2007. ISBN 9783540380825• Molecular structure and dynamics in biology. by Roman Osman; Guiliano Alagona; Caterina Ghio; International

Society for Quantum Biology and Pharmacology.Wiley, 1999. OCLC: 82140679• Theoretical chemistry in biology : from molecular structure to functional mechanisms. by Peter Kollman; Harel

Weinstein John Wiley and Sons, 1998. OCLC: 80429626

See also• Chronobiology• Circadian rhythm• Consciousness causes collapse• Erwin Schrodinger• Robert Rosen• Britton Chance• Alberte Pullman• Bernard Pullman• Stuart Hameroff• Holonomic brain theory• Mind Science Foundation• Roger Penrose• Karl Pribram• Quantum Aspects of Life• Quantum chemistry computer programs• Henry Stapp• Evan Harris Walker• What Is Life?

Quantum biology 37

External links• Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [17]

• "The Spooky World of Quantum Biology" [18]

References[1] Tae-Chang Kim, Eric Chaisson (1999). Science, Education and Future Generations. Taylor & Francis Ltd. pp. 26. ISBN 978-9057005381.[2] Ian Brown, Zengliang Yu, Thiraphat Vilaithong (2005). Introduction to Ion Beam Biotechnology. Springer-Verlag New York Inc. pp. 97.

ISBN 978-0387255316.[3] Quantum Biology. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group. http:/ / www. ks. uiuc.

edu/ Research/ quantum_biology/[4] http:/ / www. sciencedaily. com/ releases/ 2007/ 01/ 070116133617. htm Science Daily Quantum Biology: Powerful Computer Models Reveal

Key Biological Mechanism Retrieved Oct 14, 2007[5] H.M. Wiseman, J. Eisert Nontrivial quantum effects in biology: A skeptical physicists' view arXiv:0705.1232v2 [physics.gen-ph][6] Davies PC.Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life? Biosystems. 2004 Dec;78(1-3):69-79.[7] Ogryzko VV. Erwin Schroedinger, Francis Crick and epigenetic stability.Biol Direct. 2008 Apr 17;3:15.http:/ / www. biology-direct. com/

content/ 3/ 1/ 15[8] Cooper WG.Evidence for transcriptase quantum processing implies entanglement and decoherence of superposition proton states.

BioSystems. 2009 Aug; 97:73-89.doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2009.04.010[9] Cooper WG. Necessity of quantum coherence to account for the spectrum of time-dependent mutations exhibited by bacteriophage T4.

Biochem. Genet. 2009 Oct; doi:10.1007/s10528-009-9293-8[10] Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed (http:/ / www. lbl. gov/ Science-Articles/ Archive/ PBD-quantum-secrets. html)[11] Garab, G. (1999). Photosynthesis: Mechanisms and Effects: Proceedings of the XIth International Congress on Photosynthesis. Kluwer

Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-0792355472.[12] Levine, Raphael D. (2005). Molecular Reaction Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 16–18. ISBN 978-0521842761.[13] Binhi, Vladimir N. (2002). Magnetobiology: Underlying Physical Problems. Academic Press. pp. 14–16. ISBN 978-0121000714.[14] Harald Krug, Harald Brune, Gunter Schmid, Ulrich Simon, Viola Vogel, Daniel Wyrwa, Holger Ernst, Armin Grunwald, Werner Grunwald,

Heinrich Hofmann (2006). Nanotechnology: Assessment and Perspectives. Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. K.pp. 197–240. ISBN 978-3540328193.

[15] http:/ / rodgers. org. uk/ research/ Chris Rodgers, The Spin Chemistry of Bird Navigation 2005[16] http:/ / www. sciencedaily. com/ releases/ 2007/ 08/ 070827174303. htm Math Model For Circadian Rhythm Created, ScienceDaily, August

30, 2007[17] http:/ / www. ks. uiuc. edu/ Research/ quantum_biology/[18] http:/ / www. hplusmagazine. com/ articles/ bio/ spooky-world-quantum-biology

Quantum brain dynamics 38

Quantum brain dynamicsIn neuroscience, quantum brain dynamics (QBD) is a hypothesis to explain the function of the brain within theframework of quantum field theory.Large systems, like those studied biologically, have less symmetry than the idealized systems or single crystals oftenstudied in physics. Jeffrey Goldstone proved that, where symmetry is broken, additional bosons, theNambu-Goldstone bosons, will then be observed in the spectrum of possible states- one canonical example being thephonon in a crystal.Umezawa (1967) proposed a general theory of quanta of long-range coherent waves within and between brain cells,and showed a possible mechanism of memory storage and retrieval in terms of Nambu-Goldstone bosons. This waslater fleshed out into a theory encompassing all biological cells and systems in the quantum biodynamics of DelGiudice et al., (1986, 1988). Mari Jibu and Kunio Yasue (1995) later popularized these results and discussed theimplications towards consciousness.

See also• Paola Zizzi• Quantum mind• Shadows of the mind by Roger Penrose• Quantum Aspects of Life (book)• Quantum-Mind [4]

References• Conte, E, Todarello, O, Federici, A, Vitiello, F, Lopane, M, Khrennikov, A, Zbilut JP (2007). Some remarks on

an experiment suggesting quantum-like behavior of cognitive entities and formulation of an abstract quantummechanical formalism to describe cognitive entity and its dynamics. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 31: 1076-1088[1]

• Conte Elio, Todarello Orlando, Federici Antonio, Zbilut Joseph P.: Mind States follow Quantum Mechanicsduring Perception and Cognition of Ambiguous Figures: a Final Experimental Confirmation. arXiv:0802.1835[2]

• Conte Elio, Khrennikov Yuri Andrei, Todarello Orlando,Federici Antonio, Zbilut Joseph P.: Mental States FollowQuantum Mechanics during Perception and Cognition of Ambiguous Figures. Open Systems & InformationDynamics, (2009),vol.16, No.1,1-17; available on line PhilPapers. [3].

• Conte Elio, Khrennikov Yuri Andrei, Todarello Orlando, Federici Antonio, Zbilut Joseph P.: On the Existence ofQuantum Wave Function and Quantum Interference Effects in Mental States: An Experimental Confirmationduring Perception and Cognition in Humans. NeuroQuantology,(2009), First issue 2009 - available on line.

• Conte Elio: Exploration of Biological Function by Quantum Mechanics. Proceedings 10th International Congresson Cybernetics, 1983; 16-23, Namur-Belgique.

• Conte Elio: Testing Quantum Consciousness. NeuroQuantology, (2008), 6 (2): 126-139.• Conte Elio, Khrennikov Yuri Andrei, Todarello Orlando, Federici Antonio, Zbilut Joseph P.: A Preliminary

Experimental Verification On the Possibility of Bell Inequality Violation in Mental States. NeuroQuantology,(2008),6 (3): 214-221.

• Khrennikov Yuri Andrei: Quantum-like brain: Interference of minds. BioSystems, (2006), 84: 225-241. [4]• Khrennikov Yuri Andrei: Information Dynamics in Cognitive, Psychological and Anomalous Phenomena. ser.

Fundamental Theories of Physics, (2004), Kluwer Academic.

Quantum brain dynamics 39

• Del Giudice E, Doglia S, Milani M, Vitiello G (1986). Electromagnetic field and spontaneous symmetry breakingin biological matter. Nucl. Phys. B 275: 185-199.

• Del Giudice E, Preparata G, Vitiello G (1988). Water as a free electric dipole laser. Physical Review Letters 61:1085-1088. Abstract [5]

• Jibu M, Yasue K (1995). Quantum Brain Dynamics: An Introduction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.• Jibu M, Yasue K (1997). What is mind? Quantum field theory of evanescent photons in brain as quantum theory

of consciousness. Informatica 21: 471-490. Abstract [6]

• Ricciardi LM, Umezawa H (1967). Brain and physics of many-body problems. Kybernetik 4: 44-48.• Weiss V, Weiss H (2003). The golden mean as clock cycle of brain waves. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 18:

643-652. Full text [7]

References[1] http:/ / www. sciencedirect. com/ science?_ob=ArticleURL& _udi=B6TJ4-4K4WH0K-1& _coverDate=03%2F31%2F2007&

_alid=515926759& _rdoc=1& _fmt=& _orig=search& _qd=1& _cdi=5300& _sort=d& view=c& _acct=C000050221& _version=1&_urlVersion=0& _userid=10& md5=b524b38e6faf12809e883d2ab9af250e

[2] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0802. 1835[3] http:/ / philpapers. org/ profile/ 2371[4] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0205092[5] http:/ / prola. aps. org/ abstract/ PRL/ v61/ i9/ p1085_1?qid=5e2b24a9e34898ee& qseq=1& show=10[6] http:/ / ai. ijs. si/ informatica/ vols/ vol21_3_97abs. html#jib[7] http:/ / www. v-weiss. de/ chaos. html

Quantum mindThe quantum consciousness theory or quantum mind theory is a class of ideas mixing science and philosophy,sharing in common the idea that consciousness, or the state of being self-aware, cannot be fully explained byclassical mechanics alone.

IntroductionThe quantum mind hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot fully explain consciousness, and suggeststhat quantum mechanical phenomena such as quantum entanglement and superposition may play an important part inthe brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.A common argument underlying the quantum mind thesis is that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness,if only because Galileo and Newton (together with later thinkers, viz.: Locke, Hobbes and Descartes) excluded thesecondary qualities from the physical world.Fritjof Capra writes:-

To make it possible for scientists to describe nature mathematically, Galileo postulated that they shouldrestrict themselves to studying the essential properties of material bodies—shapes, numbers, andmovement—which could be measured and quantified. Other properties, like color, sound, taste, or smell,were merely subjective mental projections, which should be excluded from the domain of science. [1]

Proponents of the Quantum mind argue that perceived qualities, such as sound, taste and smell, also known as qualia,are an essential part of the human experience, and therefore cannot be discounted. They posit that classicalmechanics fails to account for the experience of such phenomena. Similarly, they hypothesize that the internalexperiences of consciousness, such as dreaming and memory, all of which are 'part and parcel' of everyday humanexperience remain unaccounted for.

Quantum mind 40

The most standard view of what quantum mechanics means is the Copenhagen Interpretation, due to Bohr andHeisenberg. In the Copenhagen Interpretation, probability waves evolve in time according to prescribed equations.But this smooth evolution is punctuated by moments when an observation takes place. Then the probability wave"collapses" onto a single point. The meaning of this is that an observation pins a particle down at an exact position,so at that moment it is not characterized by a diffuse probability wave.Early in the development of quantum mechanics, it was agreed that observations played a unique role in the theory.(This was very different from Newtonian mechanics, where observation is incidental to the dynamics, and physicsgoes about its business whether it is measured or not.) For quantum physics, the question arose: What constitutes ameasurement? Must it be consciously recognized? If the measuring apparatus is just another physical system, itshould also be describable in terms of probability waves, so there is no cause for the wave function to collapse. Inorder to give special status to these moments of measurement, when the dynamic of the probability wave abruptlyshifts, something outside of the physical system must be invoked.Perhaps it is conscious awareness that causes the wave function to collapse. Already in the 1920s, this was the firstconnection between quantum physics and consciousness. Within the Copenhagen interpretation, this provides anatural place for consciousness within quantum physics.Eugene Wigner wrote:

When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through thecreation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possibleto formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to theconsciousness. [2]

Examples of theories

David BohmDavid Bohm took the view that quantum theory and relativity contradicted one another, and that this contradictionimplied that there existed a more fundamental level in the physical universe. He claimed that both quantum theoryand relativity pointed towards this deeper theory. This more fundamental level was supposed to represent anundivided wholeness and an implicate order, from which arose the explicate order of the universe as we experienceit. Bohm's implicate order applies both to matter and consciousness, and he proposes that it could explain therelationship between them. Mind and matter are here seen as projections into our explicate order, from theunderlying reality of the implicate order.In Bohm's scheme, there is a fundamental level, where consciousness is not distinct from matter. Bohm's view ofconsciousness is related to Karl Pribram's holographic conception of the brain. Pribram regards sight and othersenses as lenses, without which the other senses would appear as a hologram. Pribram proposes that information isrecorded all over the brain, and that it is enfolded into a whole, simlar to a hologram. It is suggested that memoriesare connected by association, and manipulated by logical thought. If the brain is also receiving sensory input, thenmemories, associations, logical thought and sensory input are proposed to all be united in the overall experience ofconsciousness.In trying to describe the nature of consciousness, Bohm discusses the experience of listening to music. He thinks thatthe feeling of movement and change that makes up our experience of music derives from both the immediate pastand the present being held in the brain together, with the notes from the past seen as transformations rather thanmemories. The notes that were implicate in the immediate past are seen as becoming explicate in the present. Bohmcompares this to consciousness emerging from the implicate order.Bohm sees the movement, change, flow and also the coherence of experiences such as listening to music, as a manifestation of the implicate order. He claims to derive evidence for this from the work of Piaget in studying

Quantum mind 41

infants. He states that that these studies show that young children have to learn about time and space, because theseare part of the explicate order, but have a 'hard-wired' understanding of movement, because it is part of the implicateorder. He compares this 'hard-wiring' to Chomsky's theory that grammar is 'hard-wired' into young human brains. Inhis writings, Bohm never proposed any specific brain mechanism, by which his implicate order could emerge in away that was relevant to consciousness.

Gustav BernroiderRecent papers by physicist Gustav Bernroider, have indicated that he thinks that Bohm's implicate-explicate structurecan account for the relationship between neural processes and consciousness[3] . In a paper published in 2005,Bernroider elaborated his proposals for the physical basis of this process[4] . The main thrust of his paper was theargument that quantum coherence may be sustained in the ion channels of neurons for long enough to be relevant forneural processes, and that furthermore these channels could be entangled with surrounding lipids and proteins andwith other channels in the same membrane. Ion channels regulate the electrical potential across the axon membrane,and thus play a central role in the brain's information processing.Bernroider bases his work on recent studies of the potassium (K+) ion channel in its closed state and drawsparticularly on the atomic-level spectroscopy work of the MacKinnon group [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] . The ion channels have afilter region which allows in K+ ions, but bars other ions. These studies show that the filter region has a frameworkof five sets of four oxygen atoms, which are part of the carboxyl group of amino-acid molecules in the surroundingprotein. These are referred to as binding pockets. Two K+ ions are trapped in the selection filter of the closed ionchannel. Each of these ions is electrostatically bound to two sets of oxygen atoms or binding pockets, involving eightoxygen atoms in total. Both ions in the channel oscillate between two configurations.Bernroider uses this recently revealed structure to speculate about the possibility of quantum coherence in the ionchannels. Bernroider and co-author Sisir Roy's calculations suggested to them that the behaviour of the ions in the Kchannel could only be understood at the quantum level. Taking this as their starting point, they then ask whether thestructure of the ion channel can be related to logic states. Further calculations lead them to suggest that the K+ ionsand the oxygen atoms of the binding pockets are two quantum-entangled sub-systems, which they then equate to aquantum computational mapping. The ions that are destined to be expelled from the channel are proposed to encodeinformation about the state of the oxygen atoms. It is further proposed the separate ion channels could be quantumentangled with one another.

David ChalmersThe philosopher David Chalmers has speculated on a number of ways in which quantum mechanics might relate toconsciousness, as quoted below:-

"One possibility is that instead of postulating novel properties, physics might end up appealing toconsciousness itself, in the way that some theorists but not all, hold that quantum mechanics does." [10]

"The collapse dynamics leaves a door wide open for an interactionist interpretation." [11]

"The most promising version of such an interpretation allows conscious states to be correlated with thetotal quantum state of a system, with the extra constraint that conscious states (unlike physical states)can never be superposed. In a conscious physical system such as a brain, the physical and phenomenalstates of the system will be correlated in a (nonsuperposed) quantum state. Upon observation of asuperposed external system, Schrödinger evolution at the moment of observation would cause theobserved system to become correlated with the brain, yielding a resulting superposition of brain statesand so (by psychophysical correlation) a superposition of conscious states. But such a superpositioncannot occur, so one of the potential resulting conscious states is somehow selected (presumably by anondeterministic dynamic principle at the phenomenal level). The result is that (by psychophysicalcorrelation) a definite brain state and a definite state of the observed object are also selected." [12]

Quantum mind 42

"If physics is supposed to rule out interactionism, then careful attention to the detail of physical theory isrequired." [13]

Roger PenroseIn two books, The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind, Penrose argues that1. Humans have abilities, particularly mathematical ones, that no algorithmic computer (specifically a Turingmachine) could have, because computers are limited by Gödel's incompleteness theorem. (The argument wasoriginally due to John Lucas.)Gödel demonstrated that with any recursively enumerable set of axioms capable of expressing Peano arithmetic, itwas possible to produce a statement that was obviously true, but could not be proved by the axioms. The theoremenjoys general acceptance in the mathematical community[14] .Penrose, however, in The Emperor's New Mind built a further and highly controversial argument on this theorem. Heargued that the theorem showed that the brain had the ability to go beyond what can be demonstrated bymathematical axioms, and therefore there is something within the functioning of the brain that is not based on analgorithm (a system of calculations). A computer is just a system of algorithms, and Penrose claimed that Gödel'stheorem demonstrated that brains could perform functions that no computer could perform.Penrose is not interested in explaining phenomenal consciousness, qualia, generally regarded as the most mysteriousfeature of consciousness, but instead focuses mainly on the cognitive powers of mathematicians.Penrose's claims have been vigorously contested by many critics and notably by the philosophers Churchland andGrush[15] [16] . The theory has been much criticised [17] [18] [19] .2. Penrose's theory requires some new physics. The random choice of, for instance, the position of a particle, whichis involved in the collapse of the wave function was the only physical process that Penrose could find, which was notbased on an algorithm. However, he expressed the view that randomness was not a promising basis for the quality ofmathematical judgement highlighted by his Gödel theorem argument. However, Penrose went on to propose thatwhen the wave function did not collapse as a result of a measurement or decoherence in the environment, there couldbe an alternative form of wave function collapse, which he called objective reduction (OR). In this, each quantumsuperposition has its own space time geometry. When these geometries become separated by more than the Plancklength, they are affected by gravity, become unstable and collapse. Penrose further proposes that OR is neitherrandom nor governed by an algorithm, but is 'non-computational', selecting information embedded in thefundamental level of space time geometry.3. Penrose's objective reduction (OR) requires a coherent superpositioned state to work on. In his first book, Penrosehad lacked any detailed proposals for how OR could occur in the brain. However, collaboration with StuartHameroff [20] supplied this side of the theory during the early 1990s. Microtubules were central to Hameroff'sproposals. These are the core element of the cytoskeleton, which provides a supportive structure and performsvarious functions in organic cells, including neurons. In additions to these functions, it was now proposed that themicrotubules could support macroscopic quantum features known as Bose-Einstein condensates. It was alsosuggested that these condensates could link with other neurons via gap junctions. This is hypothesised to permitquantum coherence to extend over a large area of the brain. It is further suggested that when one of these areas ofquantum coherence collapses, there is an instance of consciousness, and the brain has access to a non-computationalprocess embedded in the fundamental level of space time geometry.At the same time, it was postulated that conventional synaptic activity influences and is influenced by quantum stateactivity in the microtubules. This part of the process is referred to as 'orchestration' hence the theory is calledOrchestrated Objective Reduction Orch OR.Hameroff's proposals like those of Penrose attracted much criticism. In particular, it was argued that conditions in thebrain would lead to any quantum coherent states decohering too quickly for them to be relevant to neural processes.

Quantum mind 43

This criticism is discussed in the Science section below.

Henry StappPhysically, Henry Stapp's approach is aligned with objective collapse theory, in that the deterministic evolution ofthe wave function, and its indeterministic collapse are seen as two real and ontologically distinct phenomena.Collapse events occurring within the brain — the mind's observation or measurement of the brain — are particularlyimportant. Since Stapp sees collapse as a mental process and the deterministic evolution of brain states as physical,his approach is philosophically aligned with interactionist dualism. The process by which collapse selects anactuality from a set of possibilities is seen by Stapp as literally a process of choice, and not merely a randomdice-throw. His approach has implications with regard to time. Since the future depends on decisions in the present,it is not pre-existing, as in the block universe theory; rather there is an evolving universe in which subjectsparticipate, as in Whitehead's metaphysics. [21]

Stapp envisages consciousness as exercising top-level control over neural excitation in the brain. Quantum brainevents are suggested to occur at the whole brain level, and are seen as being selected from the large-scale excitationof the brain. The neural excitations are viewed as a code, and each conscious experience as a selection from thiscode. The brain, in this theory, is proposed to be a self-programming computer, with a self-sustaining input frommemory, which is itself a code derived from previous experience. This process results in a number of probabilitiesfrom which consciousness has to select. The conscious act is a selection of a piece of top-level code, which thenexercises ongoing control over the flow of neural excitation. This process refers to the top levels of brain activityinvolved with information gathering, planning and the monitoring of the execution of plans. Conscious events areproposed to be capable of grasping a whole pattern of activity, thus accounting for the unity of consciousness, andproviding a solution to the 'binding problem'.Stapp's version of the conscious brain is proposed to be a system that is internally determined in a way that cannot berepresented outside the system, whereas for the rest of the physical universe an external representation plus aknowledge of the laws of physics allows an accurate prediction of future events.Stapp proposes that the proof of his theory requires the identification of the neurons that provide the top-level code,and also the process by which memory is turned into additional top-level code.

Quantum Brain DynamicsThe ideas behind quantum brain dynamics (QBD) derived originally from the physicists, Hiroomi Umezawa[22] , andHerbert Frohlich[23] in the 1960s. In recent decades, these ideas have been elaborated and given greater prominenceby younger physicists such as Mari Jibu[24] , Kunio Yasue[25] and Giuseppe Vitiello[26] . In quantum brain dynamics(QBD), the electrical dipoles of the water molecules that constitute 70% of the brain are proposed to constitute aquantum field, known here as the cortical field. The quanta of this field are described as corticons. In the theory, thisfield interacts with quantum coherent waves generated by biomolecules in the neurons and propagating along theneuronal network.Frohlich is the source of the idea that quantum coherent waves could be generated in the neuronal network. Frohlichargued that it was not clear how order could be sustained in living systems given the disruptive influence of thefluctuations in biochemical processes. He viewed the electric potential across the neuron membrane as theobservable feature of some form of underlying quantum order. His studies claimed to show that with an oscillatingcharge in a thermal bath, large numbers of quanta may condense into a single state known as a Bose condensate.This state allows long-range correlation amongst the dipoles involved. Further to this, biomolecules were proposedto line up along actin filaments (part of the cytoskeleton), and dipole oscillations to propagate along the filaments asquantum coherent waves. This now has some experimental support in the form of confirmation that biomoleculeswith high electric dipole moment have been shown to have a periodic oscillation[27] .

Quantum mind 44

Vitiello also argues that the ordered chains of chemical reactions, on which biological tissues depend, would collapsewithout some form of quantum ordering, which in QBD is described by quantum field theory rather than quantummechanics. Vitiello provides citations, which are claimed to support his view of biological tissue. These includestudies of radiation effect on cell growth[28] ,response to external stimuli[29] , non-linear tunnelling[30] ,coherentnuclear motion in membrane proteins[31] ,optical coherence in biological systems[32] , energy transfer via solitonsand coherent excitations[33] .QBD proposes that the cortical field not only interacts with, but also to a good extent controls the neuronal network.It suggests that biomolecular waves propagate along the actin filaments in the area of the cell membranes anddendritic spines. The waves derive energy from ATP molecules stored in the cell membrane, and control the ionchannels, which in turn regulate the flow of signals to the synapses. Vitiello claims that QBD does not requirequantum oscillations to last as long as the actual time to decoherence.The proponents of QBD differ somewhat as the exact way in which it produces consciousness. Jibu and Yasue thinkthat the interaction between the energy quanta of the cortical field and the biomolecular waves of the neuronalnetwork, particularly the dendritic part of the network, is what produces consciousness. On the other hand, Vitiellothinks that the quantum states involved in QBD produce two poles, a subjective representation of the external worldand a self. This self opens itself to the representation of the external world. Consciousness is, in this theory, not ineither the self or the external representation, but between the two in the opening of one to the other.

Ongoing Debate

ScienceThe main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states would decohere too quickly to berelevant to neural processing. Possibly the scientist most often quoted in relation to this criticism is Max Tegmark.Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannotcontrol brain function.Proponents of the various quantum consciousness theories have sought to defend them against Tegmark's criticism.In respect of QBD, Vitiello has argued that Tegmark's work applies to theories based on quantum mechanics but notto those such as QBD that are based on quantum field theory. In respect of Penrose and Hameroff's Orch OR theory,Hameroff along with Hagan and Tuszynski replied to Tegmark.[34] They claimed that Tegmark based hiscalculations on a model that was different from Orch OR. It is argued that in the Orch OR model, the microtubulesare shielded from decoherence by ordered water. Energy pumping as a result of thermal disequilibrium, Debye layerscreening and quantum error correction, deriving from the geometry of the microtubule lattice are also proposed aspossible sources of shielding. Similarly, in his extension of Bohm's ideas, Bernroider has claimed that the bindingpockets in the ion selection filters could protect against decoherence[4] .So far, however, there has been no experimental confirmation of the ability of the features mentioned above toprotect against decoherence, although a paper in Nature by Gregory Engel (April, 2007) on quantum coherent energytransfer in photosynthetic protein relates to quantum coherence and 'quantum computing' in living matter.

PhilosophyAnother line of criticism is that no physical theory, classical or quantum, is well suited to explaining consciousness, particularly in its most problematical form, which is phenomenal consciousness or qualia, known as the hard problem of consciousness.[35] If no physical theory can express qualia, no physical theory can fully explain consciousness. Replacing the mathematical apparatus of classical physics with the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics is therefore of no help in understanding consciousness. The modern philosopher, David Chalmers, is a critic of both classical and quantum theories and says, "Nevertheless, quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have some

Quantum mind 45

remarkable functional properties, such as non-determinism and non-locality. It is natural to speculate that theseproperties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions, such as random choice and the integration ofinformation, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled out a priori. But when it comes to the explanation of experience,quantum processes are in the same boat as any other. The question of why these processes should give rise toexperience is entirely unanswered."Other philosophers, such as Patricia and Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennett[36] believe that ordinary, reductionist,deterministic theories are perfectly adequate to deal with consciousness. In this view, understanding consciousnessrequires discovering complex organizational properties, but no supernatural elements or new physics.

See also• Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics• Consciousness causes collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics• Electromagnetic theories of consciousness• Evolutionary neuroscience• Hard problem of consciousness• Holonomic brain theory• Mechanism (philosophy)• Roger Penrose's Quantum Mind theory• Quantum brain dynamics• Theory of mind

References• Bohm, D.(1980) - Wholeness and the Implicate Order - John Benjamins [37]• Pribram, K.(1991) - Brain and Perception -Lawrence Erlbaum - [38]• Pribram, K.(1999) - Brain and the composition of conscious experience - Journal of Consciousness Studies,6,(5),

pp.12-18 [39]• Piaget, J.(1956) - The Origin of Intelligence in the Child - Routledge & Kegan Paul [40]• Bernroider, G.(2003) - Quantum neurodynamics and the relation to conscious experience - Neuroquantology, 2,

pp.163-8 [41]• Bernroider, G.& Roy, S.(2005) - Quantum entanglement of K ions, multiple channel states and the role of noise in

the brain - SPIE Vol. 5841-29, pp.205-14 [42]• Jiang, Y.,MacKinnon,R.et al. (2003) - X-ray structure of a voltage dependent K+ channel - Nature,423,pp.33-41

[43]• Jiang, Y.MacKinnon,R. et al. (2003) - The principle of gating charge movement in a voltage dependent K+

channel - Nature 423,pp.42-8 [43]• Zhou, Y.,Morais-Cabral, A.,Kaufman, A.& MacKinnon,R.(2001) - Chemistry of ion coordination and hydration

revealed in in K+ channel-Fab complex at 2.0 A resolution - Nature,414,pp.43-8 [43]• Morais-Cabral, H.,Zhou, H.& MacKinnon,R.(2001) - Energetic optimisation of ion conduction rates by the K+

selectivity filter - Nature,414,pp.37-42 [43]• Doyle, D.,MacKinnon,R.et al. (1998) - The structure of the potassium channel: Molecular basis of K+ conduction

and selectivity - Science,280,pp.69-76 [44]• Ricciardi, L.& Umezawa, H.(1967) - Kybernetik,4,pp.44-48 [45]• Frohlich, H. (1968) - Long range coherence and energy storage in biological systems - International Journal of

Quantum Chemistry,2,pp.641-649 [46]• Jibu, M.& Yasue, K (1995) - Quantum Brain Dynamics and Consciousness:Advances in Consciousness Research

- John Benjamins

Quantum mind 46

• Vitiello, G. (2001) - My Double Unveiled; Advances in Consciousness - John Benjamins [47]• Gray, C.& Singer, W.(1989) - Stimulus specific neuronal oscillations in orientation of cat visual cortex -

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,86,pp.1698-1702 [48]• Grundler & Kaiser (1992) - Experimental evidence for coherent excitations correlated with cell growth -

Nanobiology,1,pp.163-176• Kaiser, F. (1988) - Theory of non-linear excitations - In: Frohlich, H. Ed., Biological coherence and response to

external stimuli, p.25-48 - Springer Verlag• Huth et al. (1984) - Nonlinear tunneling barrier at high frequencies and their possible logic processing function in

biological membranes - In: Adey, R.& Lawrence, A. Eds., Non-linear dynamics in biological systems, pp.227-241- Plenum

• Vos M. et al. (1993) - Visualisation of coherent nuclear motion in a membrane protein by femtosecondspectroscopy - Nature,363,pp.320-335 [43]

• Li, K.et al. (1983) - Indications of optical coherence in biological systems - In: Frohlich, H.& Kremer, F. Eds,Coherent excitations in biological systems, pp.117-22 - Springer Verlag

• Huth, G.,Gutmann, F.& Vitiello, G.(1989) - The lifetime of coherent excitations - Phys. Lett, A 154,pp.339-42[49]

• Hagan, S.,Hameroff, S.& Tuszynski, J.(2002) - Quantum computation in brain microtubules? Decoherence andbiological feasibility - Physical Reviews, E65: 061901 [50]

• Nagel, E.& Newman, J. (1958) - Godel's Proof - Routledge• Grush, R.& Churchland, P. (1995) - Gap's in Penrose's Toilings - Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2,(1),

pp.10-29 [39]• Churchland, P. (1996) - The Hornswoggle Problem - Journal of Consciousness Studies,3,Nos5-6,pp.218-20 [39]• Hameroff, S. (1987) - Ultimate Computing - Elsevier [50]

Further reading• Bennett, Charles H., Shor, Peter W., Smolin, John A. and Thapliyal, Ashish V. Entanglement-Assisted Classical

Capacity of Noisy Quantum Channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3081–3084 (1999). [51]• Conte, Elio, Todarello, Orlando, Federici, Antonio, Vitiello, Francesco, Lopane, Michele, Khrennikov, Andrei

and Joseph P. Zbilut: Some remarks on an experiment suggesting quantum-like behavior of cognitive entities andformulation of an abstract quantum mechanical formalism to describe cognitive entity and its dynamics. Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 31 (2007) 1076-1088 [1]

• Conte Elio, Khrennikov Yuri Andrei, Todarello Orlando,Federici Antonio, Zbilut Joseph P.: Mental States FollowQuantum Mechanics during Perception and Cognition of Ambiguous Figures. Open Systems & InformationDynamics, (2009),Vol.16, No.1,1-17; available on line PhilPapers,[3].

• Conte Elio, Khrennikov Yuri, Todarello Orlando, Federici Antonio, Zbilut Joseph P: On the Existence ofQuantum Wave Function and Quantum Interference Effects in Mental States: An Experimental Confirmationduring Perception and Cognition in Humans. NeuroQuantology, (2009), First issue 2009 - available on line.[52]

• Conte Elio: Exploration of Biological Function by Quantum Mechanics. Proceedings 10th International Congresson Cybernetics, 1983;16-23, Namur-Belgique.

• Conte Elio: Testing Quantum Consciousness. NeuroQuantology (2008); 6 (2): 126-139.[52]• Conte Elio, Khrennikov Yuri Andrei, Todarello Orlando, Federici Antonio, Zbilut Joseph P.: A Preliminary

Experimental Verification On the Possibility of Bell Inequality Violation in Mental States. NeuroQuantology,(2008); 6 (3): 214-221.[52]

• Khrennikov Yuri Andrei: Quantum-like brain: Interference of minds. BioSystems 84, 225-241 (2006). [4]• Khrennikov Yuri Andrei: Information Dynamics in Cognitive, Psychological and Anomalous Phenomena. ser.

Fundamental Theories of Physics, Kluwer Academic, 2004.

Quantum mind 47

• Conte Elio, Todarello Orlando, Federici Antonio, Zbilut Joseph P.: Mind States follow Quantum Mechanicsduring Perception and Cognition of Ambiguous Figures: a Final Experimental Confirmation. arXiv:0802.1835[2]

• Flanagan, Brian. Are Perceptual Fields Quantum Fields? [53]• Hodgson, David. The Mind Matters. Oxford University Press, 1993.• Koch, C. and Hepp, K., Quantum mechanics in the brain [54], Nature 440, 611 (30 March 2006)• Litt et al., Is the Brain a Quantum Computer?, Cognitive Science (2006) [55]• Lockwood, Michael. Mind, Brain and the Quantum. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1989.• McFadden, Johnjoe (2000) Quantum Evolution [56] HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00-255948-X; ISBN 0-00-655128-9 .

Final chapter on the quantum mind.• Pharaoh, M.C. (online). Looking to quantum mechanics for a reductive explanation of the noumenon of

consciousness [57] Retrieved June.21 2008.• Schrödinger, Erwin. Mind and Matter. Cambridge University Press, 1959.• Weiss V, Weiss H (2003). The golden mean as clock cycle of brain waves. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 18:

643-652. Full text [58]

• Weyl, Hermann. Mind and Nature, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1934.• Wigner, Eugene. "Physics and the Explanation of Life," in Foundations of Physics, vol. 1, 1970, pp. 34–45.

External links• Macroscopic quantum effects in biophysics and consciousness [59]

• NeuroQuantology Journal [52]

• The Science and Philosophy of Consciousness [60]

• Quantum Interconnectedness [61]

• Problem with Quantum Mind Theory [4]

• Center for Consciousness Studies, [1] directed by Stuart Hameroff• Stuart Hameroff's Quantum Consciousness site [3]

• Online papers on the quantum mechanisms of consciousness [62]

• Spin & Consciousness Research [63]

• Stanford Univ. Encyclopedia of Philosophy critical survey article Harald Altmanspacher (2006) QuantumApproaches to Consciousness [64]

• Henry Stapp's collection of articles and papers [65]

• Quantumbionet [66]

• Quantum-Mind [4]

• "Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff "Orch OR" model of consciousness" [67]

• "The Quantum Mind/Classical Brain Problem" [68]

con• "What is an Essentially Quantum Mechanical Effect?", Osvaldo Pessoa Jr. [69]

• "Quantum Mechanics in the Brain", Christof Koch [70]

• International Conference: "Quantum Mind", University of Salzburg [71]

Quantum mind 48

References[1] Capra, F. The Turning Point (http:/ / www. wplus. net/ pp/ Julia/ Capra/ CONTENTS. htm)[2] cited in Quantum Enigma by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=hKrvv35-gcMC)[3] [[#Reference-idBernroider2003|Bernroider 2003]][4] [[#Reference-idBernroider2005|Bernroider 2005]][5] [[#Reference-idJiang2003|Jiang 2003]][6] [[#Reference-idJiang2003-2|Jiang 2003]][7] [[#Reference-idZhou2001|Zhou 2001]][8] [[#Reference-idMoraisCabral2001|Morais-Cabral 2001]][9] [[#Reference-idDoyle1998|Doyle 1998]][10] Chalmers, D. Consciousness and its Place in Nature (http:/ / consc. net/ papers/ nature. pdf)[11] Chalmers, D. Consciousness and its Place in Nature (http:/ / consc. net/ papers/ nature. pdf)[12] Chalmers, D. Consciousness and its Place in Nature (http:/ / consc. net/ papers/ nature. pdf)[13] Chalmers, D. Consciousness and its Place in Nature (http:/ / consc. net/ papers/ nature. pdf)[14] [[#Reference-idNagel1958|Nagel 1958]][15] [[#Reference-idGrush1995]][16] [[#Reference-idChurchland1996|Churchland 1996]][17] Georgiev, Danko. Falsifications of Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR Model of Consciousness and Novel Avenues for Development of Quantum

Mind Theory (http:/ / philsci-archive. pitt. edu/ archive/ 00003049/ )[18] Review of Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind (http:/ / ase. tufts. edu/ cogstud/ papers/ penrose. htm)[19] Puttnam, H. Review of Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind (http:/ / www. ams. org/ bull/ pre-1996-data/ 199507/ 199507015. pdf)[20] [[#Reference-idHameroff1987|Hameroff 1987]][21] stapp, H. Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (http:/ / sts. lbl. gov/ ~stapp/ Cambridge. pdf)[22] [[#Reference-idRicciardi1967|Ricciardi 1967]][23] [[#Reference-idFrohlich1968|Frohlich 1968]][24] [[#Reference-idJibu1995|Jibu 1995]][25] [[#Reference-idJibu1995|Jibu 1995]][26] [[#Reference-idVitiello2001|Vitiello 2001]][27] [[#Reference-idGray1989|Gray 1989]][28] [[#Reference-idGrundler1992|Grundler 1992]][29] [[#Reference-idKaiser1988|Kaiser 1988]][30] [[#Reference-idHuth1984|Huth 1984]][31] [[#Reference-idVos1993|Vos 1993]][32] [[#Reference-idLi1983|Li 1983]][33] [[#Reference-idHuth1989|Huth 1989]][34] [[#Reference-idHagan2002|Hagan 2002]][35] Saul-Paul Sirag" Consciousness:A Hyperspace View (http:/ / www. williamjames. com/ Theory/ Consciousness. pdf)"[36] Dennet, D. Facing Backwards on the Problem of Consciousness (http:/ / ase. tufts. edu/ cogstud/ papers/ chalmers. htm)[37] http:/ / www. homepages. ihug. co. nz/ ~sai/ Bohm. html[38] http:/ / www. homepages. ihug. co. nz/ ~sai/ hologram. html[39] http:/ / www. imprint. co. uk[40] http:/ / www. tip. psychology. org/ piaget/ . html[41] http:/ / www. uni-salzburg. at/ portal/ page?_pageid=163,150830& _dad=portal& _schema=PORTAL[42] http:/ / www. uni-salzburg. at/ pls/ portal/ docs/ 1/ 542891. PDF[43] http:/ / www. nature. com[44] http:/ / www. ionchannels. org/ showcitationlist. php?=Mackinnon& initials=R[45] http:/ / www. online. karger. com[46] http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ content/ u3r5637k10185774[47] http:/ / www. sa. infin. it/ giuseppe. vitiello[48] http:/ / www. nature. com/ nature/ journal/ v338/ n6213/ abs/ 338334a0. html[49] http:/ / publish. aps. org[50] http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org[51] http:/ / prola. aps. org/ abstract/ PRL/ v83/ i15/ p3081_1[52] http:/ / www. neuroquantology. com[53] http:/ / wordassociation1. net/ FieldWork. html[54] http:/ / www. nature. com/ nature/ journal/ v440/ n7084/ full/ 440611a. html[55] http:/ / watarts. uwaterloo. ca/ ~celiasmi/ Papers/ litt%20et%20al. 2006. quantum%20brain. cogsci. pdf[56] http:/ / www. surrey. ac. uk/ qe/ quantumevolution. htm

Quantum mind 49

[57] http:/ / homepage. ntlworld. com/ m. pharoah/ thinginitself. html[58] http:/ / www. volkmar-weiss. de/ chaos. html[59] http:/ / www. iasc-bg. org. yu/ Papers%5C2004_NEUROQUANTOLOGY. pdf[60] http:/ / www. users. globalnet. co. uk/ ~lka/ conz. htm[61] http:/ / www. starstuffs. com/ physcon2/[62] http:/ / consc. net/ online/ 2. 7b[63] http:/ / www. quantumbrain. org[64] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ qt-consciousness/[65] http:/ / www-physics. lbl. gov/ ~stapp/ stappfiles. html[66] http:/ / quantum. ibiocat. eu/ eng/ index. php[67] http:/ / www. quantumconsciousness. org/ penrose-hameroff/ quantumcomputation. html[68] http:/ / www. ags. uni-sb. de/ ~cp/ sagwas04/ Pereira-NeuroQuantology-2003. pdf[69] http:/ / www. fflch. usp. br/ df/ opessoa/ InfoCog-3. pdf[70] http:/ / www. klab. caltech. edu/ refweb/ paper/ 528. pdf[71] http:/ / www. sbg. ac. at/ brain2007/

The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe 50

The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to theLaws of the Universe

The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws ofthe Universe

Author Roger Penrose

Language English

Genre(s) Popular science

Publisher Vintage Books

Publication date 2004 Later revised editions: 2005, 2006, 2007

Pages 1136

The Road to Reality is a book on modern physics by the British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, published in2004. It covers the basics of the standard model of modern physics, discussing general relativity and quantummechanics and then expands on the possible unification of these two theories.The book is just over 1100 pages, of which the first 350 are dedicated to mathematics—Penrose's goal was toacquaint inquisitive readers with the mathematical tools needed to understand the remainder of the book in depth. Onpage 383 physics enters the discussion with the topic of spacetime. From there it moves on to fields in spacetime,deriving the classical electrical and magnetic forces from first principles; that is, if one lives in spacetime of aparticular sort, these fields develop naturally as a consequence. Energy and conservation laws appear in thediscussion of the Lagrangians and Hamiltonians, before moving onto a full discussion of quantum physics, particletheory and quantum field theory. A discussion of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is given a fullchapter; superstrings are given a chapter near the end of the book, as are loop gravity and twistor theory. The bookends with an exploration of other theories and possible ways forward.The book discusses the physical world. Many fields that scientists in the 19th century believed were separate,electricity and magnetism for instance, are facets of a more fundamental properties. Some texts, both popular anduniversity level, introduce these topics as separate concepts and then "force" the combination on them much later. InRoad to Reality this process is reversed, by first demonstrating the mathematics that is needed to discuss thespacetime we appear to live in, then showing that electromagnetism simply falls out fully formed.As Penrose admits, the final chapters reflect his personal perspective, as opposed to what he considers currentfashion among theoretical physicists. He is skeptical about string theory, to which he prefers loop quantum gravity;he is optimistic about his own approach, twistor theory, and holds some controversial views about the role ofconsciousness in physics, as laid out in his earlier books (see Shadows of the Mind).

The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe 51

See also• The Emperor's New Mind• Shadows of the Mind• The Elegant Universe• Three Roads to Quantum Gravity

Book editions• Alfred A. Knopf (publisher), February 2005, hardcover, ISBN 0-679-45443-8• Vintage Books, 2005, softcover, ISBN 0-09-944068-7• Vintage Books, 2006, softcover, ISBN 0-099-44068-7• Vintage Books, 2007, softcover, ISBN 0-679-77631-1

External links• Site [1] with errata and solutions to the book's many exercises. Not sponsored by Penrose.• Internet forum. [2]

References[1] http:/ / www. roadsolutions. ox. ac. uk/[2] http:/ / www. roadtoreality. info/

Shadows of the Mind 52

Shadows of the Mind

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science ofConsciousness

Author Roger Penrose

Cover artist Joel Nakamura

Country USA

Language English

Subject(s) Artificial Intelligence, mathematics, & quantum mechanics

Publisher Oxford University Press, 1st edition

Publication date 1994 (1st ed.)

Media type Hardback

Pages 457 pages

ISBN ISBN 0-19-853978-9 (1st ed.)

OCLC Number 30593111 [1]

Dewey Decimal 006.3 20

LCClassification

Q335 .P416 1994

Preceded by The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics

Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness is a 1994 book by mathematicalphysicist Roger Penrose, and serves as a followup to his 1989 book The Emperor's New Mind: ConcerningComputers, Minds and The Laws of Physics.In the book, Penrose expounds upon his previous assertions that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus isnot capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. Penrose hypothesizes thatquantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness, specifically thatmicrotubules within neurons provide the brain with the hardware necessary to perform quantum computation andtherefore that the collapse of the quantum wavefunction plays an important role in brain function.In Shadows of the Mind, Penrose takes a new approach in arguing that consciousness is non-algorithmic, attemptinga mathematical proof using Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Shadows of the Mind 53

CriticismPenrose's views on the human thought process are not widely accepted in scientific circles (Drew McDermott[2] ,David Chalmers[3] and others). According to Marvin Minsky, because people can construe false ideas to be factual,the process of thinking is not limited to formal logic. But, this is exactly Penrose's point -- that human thinking andconsciousness is not formal logic, not a Turing machine, as are today's computers. Further, AI programs can alsoconclude that false statements are true, so error is not unique to humans. Another dissenter, Charles Seife, has said,"Penrose, the Oxford mathematician famous for his work on tiling the plane with various shapes, is one of a handfulof scientists who believe that the ephemeral nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process."In May 1995 Stanford mathematician Solomon Feferman attacked Penrose's approach on multiple grounds,including the mathematical validity of his Gödelian argument and theoretical background.[4] In 1996 Penrose offereda consolidated reply to many of the criticisms of 'Shadows'.[5]

John Searle criticizes Penrose's appeal to Gödel as resting on the fallacy that all computational algorithms must becapable of mathematical description. As a counter-example, Searle cites the assignment of license plate numbers tospecific vehicle identification numbers, in order to register a vehicle. According to Searle, no mathematical functioncan be used to connect a known VIN with its LPN, but the process of assignment is quite simple—namely, "firstcome, first serve"—and can be performed entirely by a computer.[6]

Microtubule hypothesisPenrose and Stuart Hameroff have constructed the Orch-OR theory in which human consciousness is the result ofquantum gravity effects in microtubules. But Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E,[7] calculated that thetime scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least1010. The reception of the paper is summed up by this statement in his support: "Physicists outside the fray, such asIBM's John Smolin, say the calculations confirm what they had suspected all along. 'We're not working with a brainthat's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior', he says." The Tegmarkpaper has been widely cited by critics of the Penrose-Hameroff proposal.

See also• The Emperor's New Mind• Quantum mind• The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, a 2004 book by Penrose• Alan Turing, creator of the Turing test• Orch-OR

Notes and references[1] http:/ / worldcat. org/ oclc/ 30593111[2] Penrose is Wrong (http:/ / psyche. cs. monash. edu. au/ v2/ psyche-2-17-mcdermott. html) Drew McDermott, PSYCHE, 2(17), October, 1995[3] Minds, Machines, And Mathematics - A Review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose (http:/ / psyche. cs. monash. edu. au/ v2/

psyche-2-09-chalmers. html) David J. Chalmers, PSYCHE 2(9) June 1995[4] Penrose's Gödelian argument (http:/ / psyche. cs. monash. edu. au/ v2/ psyche-2-07-feferman. html) ( PDF (http:/ / math. stanford. edu/

~feferman/ papers/ penrose. pdf)) Feferman, PSYCHE 2(7) May 1995[5] Beyond the Doubting of a Shadow - A Reply to Commentaries on Shadows of the Mind (http:/ / psyche. cs. monash. edu. au/ v2/

psyche-2-23-penrose. html) Roger Penrose, PSYCHE, 2(23), January 1996[6] Searle, John R. The Mystery of Consciousness. 1997. ISBN 0940322064. pp 85-86.[7] Tegmark, M. (2000), " Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9907009)", Phys. Rev. E 61:

4194–4206, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1103/ PhysRevE. 61. 4194),

This article includes text originally by Philip Dorrell (http:/ / www. 1729. com/ consciousness/ godel. html) which islicensed under the GFDL

Henry Stapp 54

Henry StappHenry Stapp is an American physicist, well-known for his work in quantum mechanics.

BiographyAfter receiving his PhD in particle physics at the University of California, Berkeley, under the supervision of NobelLaureates Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain, Stapp moved to ETH Zurich to do post-doctoral work underWolfgang Pauli. During this period he composed an article called 'Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics', which henever sent for publication, but would become the title of his 1993 book. When Pauli died in 1958, Stapp transferredto Munich, now in the company of Werner Heisenberg. While making important contributions to, inter alia, theanalysis of proton-proton scattering and the development of analytic S-matrix theory, Stapp is perhaps most wellknown for his ongoing work in the foundations of quantum mechanics, with particular focus on explicating the roleand nature of consciousness. He is also an expert on Bell's Theorem, having solved problems related to non-localitypresented by John Bell and Albert Einstein.He currently performs his research at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

ConsciousnessSome of Stapp's work concerns the implications of quantum mechanics for consciousness.Stapp sees a global collapse of superposed brain states as in the process of choosing between alternatives. Stapppoints out that orthodox quantum theory reconciles two diverse aspects of scientific practice: the mathematicalaspect represented by the deterministic evolution of mathematical properties in accordance with a deterministicequation Schrödinger's equation; and the empirical aspect associated with our human actions upon the world aboutus, and the feedbacks that we experience. Another way that he puts it is that the mathematically determinedevolution via Schrödinger's equation is the 'rock like' aspect of matter, while the quantum collapse of the wavefunction is mind-like. His theory of how mind may interact with matter via quantum processes in the brain differsfrom that of Penrose and Hameroff. While the latter postulates quantum computing in the microtubules in brainneurons, Stapp postulates more global collapse via his 'mind like' wave-function collapse that exploits certain aspectsof the quantum Zeno effect within the synapses to explain attention.

AnalysisThe known laws of quantum theory, taken as including wave function collapse, are indeterministic; they do notcompletely specify either the actions we take or the outcomes we experience in terms of the prior mathematical stateof the universe, and the choice of action is not fixed even statistically. Thus, according to at least one orthodoxcontemporary theory, the universe of which we are parts evolves, insofar as contemporary science can say, in a waythat need not be determined exclusively by the matter-like aspects of nature (although the existence of immaterialdetermining factors remains speculative). A corollary of this view of reality is that the history of the universe neednot be a fixed 4 dimensional structure, as nineteenth century physics proclaimed, but is constantly forging ahead intothe future, in keeping with common sense. According to Stapp, each increase in human knowledge is associated witha wave function collapse, which is an 'act of creation' that is a step along the arrow of time. Thus, free will could beseen as directly instrumental in the evolution of the universe.The emergence of Quantum Darwinism supports Stapp's theories of consciousness. Quantum Darwinism is a theoryexplaining the emergence of the classical world from the quantum world as due to a process of Darwinian selection.It is proposed by Wojciech Zurek and a group of collaborators including Ollivier, Poulin, Paz and Blume-Kohout.The development of the theory is due to the integration of a number of Zurek’s research topics pursued over thecourse of twenty five years including: pointer states, einselection and decoherence.

Henry Stapp 55

See also• Quantum mind• Consciousness causes collapse• Quantum Zeno effect

External links• List of papers on LBNL server [65]

Evan Harris WalkerEvan Harris Walker (died August 17, 2006), was an American physicist.Born in Franklin, Indiana, Harris received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Maryland in 1964. He holdsover a dozen patents and has published more than a hundred papers in scientific journals.Walker founded the Walker Cancer Research Institute, a nonprofit organization based in Aberdeen, Maryland, whichfunds public awareness of the risk of cancer and research for a cure. However, the organization has consistentlyreceived poor ratings by charity watchdog organizations. (See External Links.)Walker promoted the charge that Albert Einstein "stole" special relativity from his first wife, Mileva Marić. (Thisclaim has not been accepted by mainstream historians of science.)[Pais (1994), pp. 1-29; Holton (1996), pp. 177-193;Stachel (2002), p. 26-38; 39-55; Martinez, (2005), pp. 49-56.]Evan Harris Walker died, aged 70, on August 17, 2006, at Harford Memorial Hospital in Havre de Grace, Maryland.

Scientific careerIn 2000 Walker published The Physics of Consciousness. This book attempts to describe how quantum mechanicalprocesses may be responsible for the creation of human consciousness.Walker developed concepts and designs that have resulted in several inventions including one invention in the fieldof solar energy and a recent development in the field of environmental protection. His inventions were introducedinto the design of the M-1 Abrams tank used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, contributing to the saving of 48 lives (byactual count) during that conflict. He made significant contributions on behalf of the U.S. Government's interests todelay and mitigate the Yom Kippur War that occurred in 1973. Walker also contributed significantly to non-nucleardesigns for ballistic missile defense.Walker made contributions to the US Satellite Program in the development of formulas to determine satellite electricfield effects on plasma probes and instrumentation. Walker was an authority on lunar surface phenomena,particularly in the areas of photoelectric effects on surface features, meteoric impact effects, cratering statistics,surface and subsurface structure, and erosion transport mechanisms on the moon.[1]

Evan Harris Walker 56

References• "The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life" by Evan Harris Walker, Ph.D.,

published in 2000 by Perseus Publishing, ISBN 0-7382-0436-6• Holton (1996). Einstein, History, and Other Passions. Harvard University Press, pp. 177-193.• Martinez, A. (2005). "Handling evidence in history: the case of Einstein's Wife". School Science Review, Vol. 86,

No. 316 (March 2005), pp. 49-56.• Pais (1994). Einstein Lived Here. Oxford University Press, pp. 1-29.• Stachel (2002). Einstein from 'B' to 'Z'. Boston: Bïrkhauser, pp. 26-38; 49-56.

See also• Consciousness causes collapse• Quantum mind

External links• "Walker Cancer Research Institute [2]". Organizational home. Retrieved February 4, 2006.

• Walker's Bio [3]

• The Charity Navigator rating [4] for the Walker Cancer Research Institute.• Better Business Bureau notes failure to disclose [5] by the Walker Cancer Research Institute.• "Evan Harris Walker [1]". Parapsychology Association. Retrieved February 4, 2006.• "Student Tribute: Legendary Thinker, Physicist Evan H. Walker, Remembered this Week [6]". Science of Self

Club. Retrieved August 30, 2006.

References[1] http:/ / www. parapsych. org/ members/ e_h_walker. html[2] http:/ / walkercri. org/ index. html[3] http:/ / walkercri. org/ people/ ew-pro. htm[4] http:/ / www. charitynavigator. org/ index. cfm/ bay/ search. summary/ orgid/ 5417. htm[5] http:/ / www. bbb. org/ charity-reviews/ national/ walker-cancer-research-institute-in-aberdeen-md-1301[6] http:/ / cref. tripod. com

Theory of mind 57

Theory of mindTheory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—tooneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one'sown.[1] Though there are philosophical approaches to issues raised in such discussions, theory of mind as such isdistinct from the philosophy of mind.

Defining Theory of MindTheory of Mind is a theory insofar as the mind is not directly observable.[2] The presumption that others have a mindis termed a theory of mind because each human can only prove the existence of his or her own mind throughintrospection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another. It is typically assumed that others have minds byanalogy with one's own, and based on the reciprocal nature of social interaction, as observed in joint attention, [3] thefunctional use of language,[4] and understanding of others' emotions and actions.[5] Having a theory of mind allowsone to attribute thoughts, desires, and intentions to others, to predict or explain their actions, and to posit theirintentions. As originally defined, it enables one to understand that mental states can be the cause of—and thus beused to explain and predict—others’ behavior.[6] Being able to attribute mental states to others and understandingthem as causes of behavior implies, in part, that one must be able to conceive of the mind as a “generator ofrepresentations”.[7] [8] If a person does not have a complete theory of mind it may be a sign of cognitive ordevelopmental impairment.Theory of mind appears to be an innate potential ability in humans, but one requiring social and other experienceover many years to bring to fruition. Different people may develop more, or less, effective theories of mind.Empathy is a related concept, meaning experientially recognizing and understanding the states of mind, includingbeliefs, desires and particularly emotions of others, often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another'sshoes." Theorizing in the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development maintains that theory of mind is abyproduct of a broader hypercognitive ability of the human mind to register, monitor, and represent its ownfunctioning. [9]

Research on theory of mind in a number of different populations (human and animal, adults and children, normally-and atypically-developing) has grown rapidly in the almost 30 years since Premack and Woodruff's paper, "Does thechimpanzee have a theory of mind?",[10] as have the theories of theory of mind. The emerging field of socialneuroscience has also begun to address this debate, by imaging humans while performing tasks demanding theunderstanding of an intention, belief or other mental state.An alternative account of ToM is given within operant psychology and provides significant empirical evidence for afunctional account of both perspective taking and empathy. The most developed operant approach is founded onresearch on derived relational responding and is subsumed within what is called, "Relational Frame Theory."According to this view empathy and perspective taking comprise a complex set of derived relational abilities basedon learning to discriminate and verbally respond to ever more complex relations between self, others, place, andtime, and the transformation of function through established relations. [11] [12]

Philosophical rootsContemporary discussions of ToM have their roots in philosophical debate—most broadly, from the time ofDescartes’ "Second Meditation," which set the groundwork for considering the science of the mind. Most prominentrecently are two contrasting approaches, in the philosophical literature, to theory of mind: theory-theory andsimulation theory. The theory-theorist imagines a veritable theory—"folk psychology"—used to reason about others'minds. The theory is developed automatically and innately, though instantiated through social interactions.[13]

Theory of mind 58

On the other hand, simulation theory suggests ToM is not, at its core, theoretical. Two kinds of simulationism havebeen proposed.[14] One version (Alvin Goldman's) emphasizes that one must recognize one's own mental statesbefore ascribing mental states to others by simulation. The second version of simulation theory proposes that eachperson comes to know his or her own and others' minds through what Robert Gordon[15] names a logical "ascentroutine" which answers questions about mental states by re-phrasing the question as a metaphysical one. Forexample, if Zoe asks Pam, "Do you think that dog wants to play with you?", Pam would ask herself, "Does that dogwant to play with me?" to determine her own response. She could equally well ask that to answer the question ofwhat Zoe might think. Both hold that people generally understand one another by simulating being in the other'sshoes.One of the differences between the two theories that have influenced psychological consideration of ToM is thattheory-theory describes ToM as a detached theoretical process that is an innate feature, whereas simulation theoryportrays ToM as a kind of knowledge that allows one to form predictions of someone's mental states by puttingoneself in the other person's shoes and simulating them. These theories continue to inform the definitions of theoryof mind at the heart of scientific ToM investigation.The philosophical roots of the Relational Frame Theory account of ToM arises from contextual psychology andrefers to the study of organisms (both human and non-human) interacting in and with a historical and currentsituational context. It is an approach based on contextualism, a philosophy in which any event is interpreted as anongoing act inseparable from its current and historical context and in which a radically functional approach to truthand meaning is adopted. As a variant of contextualism, RFT focuses on the construction of practical, scientificknowledge. This scientific form of contextual psychology is virtually synonymous with the philosophy of operantpsychology[16] .

Theory of mind developmentThe study of which animals are capable of attributing knowledge and mental states to others, as well as when inhuman ontogeny and phylogeny this ability developed, has identified a number of precursory behaviors to a theoryof mind. Understanding attention, understanding of others' intentions, and imitative experience with other people arehallmarks of a theory of mind which may be observed early in the development of what will later become afull-fledged theory. In studies with non-human animals and pre-verbal humans, in particular, researchers look tothese behaviors preferentially in making inferences about mind.Baron-Cohen identified the infant's understanding of attention in others, a social skill found by 7 to 9 months of age,as a "critical precursor" to the development of theory of mind[17] . Understanding attention involves understandingthat seeing can be directed selectively as attention, that the looker assesses the seen object as "of interest," and thatseeing can induce beliefs. Attention can be directed and shared by the act of pointing, a joint attention behaviorwhich requires taking into account another person's mental state, particularly whether the person notices an object orfinds it of interest. Baron-Cohen speculates that the inclination to spontaneously reference an object in the world asof interest ("proto-declarative pointing") and to likewise appreciate the directed attention and interests of anothermay be the underlying motive behind all human communication[18] .Understanding of others' intentions is another critical precursor to understanding other minds because intentionality, or "aboutness", is a fundamental feature of mental states and events. The "intentional stance" has been defined by Dennett[19] as an understanding that others' actions are goal-directed and arise from particular beliefs or desires. Both 2- and 3-year-old children could discriminate when an experimenter intentionally vs. accidentally marked a box as baited with stickers[20] . Even earlier in ontogeny, Meltzoff found that 18 month-old infants could perform target manipulations that adult experimenters attempted and failed, suggesting the infants could represent the object-manipulating behavior of adults as involving goals and intentions [21] . While attribution of intention (the box-marking) and knowledge (false-belief tasks) is investigated in young humans and nonhuman animals to detect precursors to a theory of mind, Gagliardi et al. have pointed out that even adult humans do not always act in a way

Theory of mind 59

consistent with an attributional perspective[22] . In the experiment, adult human subjects came to make choices aboutbaited containers when guided by confederates who could not see (and therefore, not know) which container hadbeen baited.Recent research in developmental psychology suggests that the infant's ability to imitate others lies at the origins ofboth a theory of mind and other social-cognitive achievements like perspective-taking and empathy[23] . Accordingto Meltzoff, the infant's innate understanding that others are "like me" allows it to recognize the equivalence betweenthe physical and mental states apparent in others and those felt by the self. For example, the infant uses his ownexperiences orienting his head/eyes toward an object of interest to understand the movements of others who turntoward an object, that is, that they will generally attend to objects of interest or significance. Some researchers incomparative disciplines have hesitated to put a too-ponderous weight on imitation as a critical precursor to advancedhuman social-cognitive skills like mentalizing and empathizing, especially if true imitation is no longer employed byadults. A test of imitation by Horowitz[24] found that adult subjects imitated an experimenter demonstrating a noveltask far less closely than children subjects did. Horowitz points out that the precise psychological state underlyingimitation is unclear and cannot, by itself, be used to draw conclusions about the mental states of humans.

Empirical investigationWhether children younger than 3 or 4 years old may have a theory of mind is a topic of debate among researchers. Itis a challenging question, due to the difficulty of assessing what pre-linguistic children understand about others andthe world. Tasks used in research into the development of ToM must take into account the umwelt—(the Germanword Umwelt means "environment" or "surrounding world")—of the pre-verbal child.

False-belief taskOne of the most important milestones in theory of mind development is gaining the ability to attribute false belief:that is, to recognize that others can have beliefs about the world that are wrong. To do this, it is suggested, one mustunderstand how knowledge is formed, that people’s beliefs are based on their knowledge, that mental states candiffer from reality, and that people’s behavior can be predicted by their mental states. Numerous versions of thefalse-belief task have been developed, based on the initial task done by Wimmer and Perner (1983).[25]

In the most common version of the false-belief task (often called the ‘Sally-Anne’ task), children are told or shown astory involving two characters. For example, the child is shown two dolls, Sally and Anne, who have a basket and abox, respectively. Sally also has a marble, which she places in her basket, and then leaves to take a walk. While sheis out of the room, Anne takes the marble from the basket, eventually putting it in the box. Sally returns, and thechild is then asked where Sally will look for the marble. The child passes the task if she answers that Sally will lookin the basket, where she put the marble; the child fails the task if she answers that Sally will look in the box, wherethe child knows the marble is hidden, even though Sally cannot know, since she did not see it hidden there. In orderto pass the task, the child must be able to understand that another’s mental representation of the situation is differentfrom their own, and the child must be able to predict behavior based on that understanding. The results of researchusing false-belief tasks have been fairly consistent: most normally-developing children are unable to pass the tasksuntil around age four. (Notably, while most children, including those with Down's syndrome, are able to pass this"test", in one study, 80% of children diagnosed with autism were unable to do so.)

Appearance-reality taskOther tasks have been developed to try to solve the problems inherent in the false-belief task. In the "appearance-reality", or "Smarties" task, experimenters ask children what they believe to be the contents of a box that looks as though it holds a candy called "Smarties." After the child guesses (usually) "Smarties," each is shown that the box in fact contained pencils. The experimenter then re-closes the box and asks the child what she thinks another person, who has not been shown the true contents of the box, will think is inside. The child passes the task if

Theory of mind 60

she responds that another person will think that there are "Smarties" in the box, but fails the task if she responds thatanother person will think that the box contains pencils. Gopnik & Astington (1988) found that children pass this testat age four or five years.

Other tasksThe "false-photograph" task[26] [27] is another task that serves as a measure of theory of mind development. In thistask, children must reason about what is represented in a photograph that differs from the current state of affairs.Within the false-photograph task, there is either a location or identity change.[28] In the location-change task, thechild is told a story about a character that puts an object in one location (e.g., chocolate in a green cupboard) andtakes a Polaroid photograph of the scene. While the photograph is developing, the object is moved to a differentlocation (e.g., to a blue cupboard). The child is then asked two control questions, “When we first took the picture,where was the object? Where is the object now?” The subject is also asked a false-photograph question, “Where isthe object in the picture?” The child passes the task if she correctly identifies the location of the object in the pictureand the actual location of the object at the time of the question.In order to make tasks more accessible for young children, non-human animals, and autistic individuals, theory ofmind research has begun employing non-verbal paradigms. One category of tasks uses a preferential lookingparadigm, with looking time as the dependent variable. For instance, Woodward found that 9-month-old infantspreferred looking at behaviors performed by a human hand over those made by an inanimate hand-like object. Otherparadigms look at rates of imitative behavior, the ability to replicate and complete unfinished goal-directed acts[29] ,and observations of rates of pretend play[30]

AutismThe theory of mind (ToM) impairment describes a difficulty someone would have with perspective taking. This isalso sometimes referred to as mind-blindness. This means that individuals with a ToM impairment would have ahard time seeing things from any other perspective than their own.[31] Individuals who experience a theory of minddeficit have difficulty determining the intentions of others, lack understanding of how their behavior affects others,and have a difficult time with social reciprocity.[32] In 1985 Simon Baron-Cohen, Alan M. Leslie and Uta Frithpublished research which suggested that children with autism do not employ a theory of mind,[33] and suggested thatchildren with autism have particular difficulties with tasks requiring the child to understand another person's beliefs.These difficulties persist when children are matched for verbal skills (Happe, 1995, Child Development) and havebeen taken as a key feature of autism. Many individuals classified as having autism have severe difficulty assigningmental states to others, and they seem to lack theory of mind capabilities.[34] Researchers who study the relationshipbetween autism and theory of mind attempt to explain the connection in a variety of ways. One account assumes thattheory of mind plays a role in the attribution of mental states to others and in childhood pretend play.[35] Accordingto Leslie,[35] theory of mind is the capacity to mentally represent thoughts, beliefs, and desires, regardless of whetheror not the circumstances involved are real. This might explain why individuals with autism show extreme deficits inboth theory of mind and pretend play. However, Hobson proposes a social-affective justification,[36] which suggeststhat a person with autism deficits in theory of mind result from a distortion in understanding and responding toemotions. He suggests that typically developing human beings, unlike individuals with autism, are born with a set ofskills (such as social referencing ability) which will later enable them to comprehend and react to other people’sfeelings. Other scholars emphasize that autism involves a specific developmental delay, so that children with theimpairment vary in their deficiencies, because they experience difficulty in different stages of growth. Very earlysetbacks can alter proper advancement of joint-attention behaviors, which may lead to a failure to form a full theoryof mind.[37]

It has been speculated[38] that ToM exists on a continuum as opposed to the traditional view of a concrete presence or absence. While some research has suggested that some autistic populations are unable to attribute mental states to

Theory of mind 61

others[39] , recent evidence points to the possibility of coping mechanisms that facilitate a spectrum of mindfulbehavior[40] . In addition to autism, ToM deficits have also been observed in schizophrenics.

Brain mechanisms

In normally developing humansResearch on theory of mind in autism led to the view that mentalizing abilities are subserved by dedicatedmechanisms that can (in some cases) be impaired while general cognitive function remains largely intact.Neuroimaging research has supported this view, demonstrating specific brain regions consistently engaged duringtheory of mind tasks. Early PET research on theory of mind, using verbal and pictorial story comprehension tasks,identified a set of regions including the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), and area around posterior superiortemporal sulcus (pSTS), and sometimes precuneus and amygdala/temporopolar cortex (reviewed in [41] ).Subsequently, research on the neural basis of theory of mind has diversified, with separate lines of research focusedon the understanding of beliefs, intentions, and more complex properties of minds such as psychological traits.Studies from Rebecca Saxe's lab at MIT, using a false belief versus false photograph task contrast aimed to isolatethe mentalizing component of the false belief task, have very consistently found activation in mPFC, precuneus, andtemporo-parietal junction (TPJ), right-lateralized.[42] [43] In particular, it has been proposed that the right TPJ (rTPJ)is selectively involved in representing the beliefs of others.[44] However, this hypothesis remains controversial,because the same rTPJ region has been consistently activated during spatial reorienting of visual attention[45] [46] ;Jean Decety from the University of Chicago and Jason Mitchell from Harvard have thus proposed that the rTPJsubserves a more general function involved in both false belief understanding and attentional reorienting, rather thana mechanism specialized for social cognition.Functional imaging has also been used to study the detection of mental state information in Heider-Simmel-esqueanimations of moving geometric shapes, which typical humans automatically perceive as social interactions ladenwith intention and emotion. Three studies found remarkably similar patterns of activation during the perception ofsuch animations versus a random or deterministic motion control: mPFC, pSTS, fusiform face area (FFA), andamygdala were selectively engaged during the ToM condition.[47] [48] [49] Another study presented subjects with ananimation of two dots moving with a parameterized degree of intentionality (quantifying the extent to which the dotschased each other), and found that pSTS activation correlated with this parameter.[50]

A separate body of research has implicated the posterior superior temporal sulcus in the perception of intentionalityin human action; this area is also involved in perceiving biological motion, including body, eye, mouth, andpoint-light display motion (reviewed in [51] ). One study found increased pSTS activation while watching a humanlift his hand versus having his hand pushed up by a piston (intentional versus unintentional action).[52] Severalstudies have found increased pSTS activation when subjects perceive a human action that is incongruent with theaction expected from the actor’s context and inferred intention: for instance, a human performing a reach-to-graspmotion on empty space next to an object, versus grasping the object[53] ; a human shifting eye gaze toward emptyspace next to a checkerboard target versus shifting gaze toward the target[54] ; a human turning on a light with hisknee, versus turning on a light with his knee while carrying a pile of books[55] ; and a walking human pausing as hepasses behind a bookshelf, versus walking at a constant speed.[56] In these studies, actions in the "congruent" casehave a straightforward goal, and are easy to explain in terms of the actor’s intention; the incongruent actions, on theother hand, require further explanation (why would someone twist empty space next to a gear?), and apparentlydemand more processing in the STS. Note that this region is distinct from the temporo-parietal area activated duringfalse belief tasks.[56] Also note that pSTS activation in most of the above studies was largely right-lateralized,following the general trend in neuroimaging studies of social cognition and perception: also right-lateralized are theTPJ activation during false belief tasks, the STS response to biological motion, and the FFA response to faces.

Theory of mind 62

Neuropsychological evidence has provided support for neuroimaging results on the neural basis of theory of mind. Astudy with patients suffering from a lesion of the temporoparietal junction of the brain (between the temporal lobeand parietal lobe) reported that they have difficulty with some theory of mind tasks.[57] This shows that theory ofmind abilities are associated with specific parts of the human brain. However, the fact that the medial prefrontalcortex and temporoparietal junction are necessary for theory of mind tasks does not imply that these regions arespecific to that function.[45] [58] TPJ and mPFC may subserve more general functions necessary for ToM.Research by Vittorio Gallese, Luciano Fadiga and Giacomo Rizzolatti (reviewed in [59] ) has shown that somesensorimotor neurons, which are referred to as mirror neurons, first discovered in the premotor cortex of rhesusmonkeys, may be involved in action understanding. Single-electrode recording revealed that these neurons firedwhen a monkey performed an action and when the monkey viewed another agent carrying out the same task.Similarly, fMRI studies with human participants have shown brain regions (assumed to contain mirror neurons) areactive when one person sees another person's goal-directed action.[60] These data have led some authors to suggestthat mirror neurons may provide the basis for theory of mind in the brain, and to support simulation theory of mindreading (see above).[61]

However, there is also evidence against the link between mirror neurons and theory of mind. First, macaquemonkeys have mirror neurons but do not seem to have a 'human-like' capacity to understand theory of mind andbelief. Second, fMRI studies of theory of mind typically report activation in the mPFC, temporal poles and TPJ orSTS,[62] but these brain areas are not part of the mirror neuron system. Some investigators, like developmentalpsychologist Andrew Meltzoff and neuroscientist Jean Decety, believe that mirror neurons merely facilitate learningthrough imitation and may provide a precursor to the development of ToM.[63] [64]

In autismSeveral neuroimaging studies have looked at the neural basis theory of mind impairment in subjects with Aspergersyndrome and high-functioning autism (HFA). The first PET study of theory of mind in autism (also the firstneuroimaging study using a task-induced activation paradigm in autism) employed a story comprehension task,[65] ,replicating a prior study in normal individuals.[66] This study found displaced and diminished mPFC activation insubjects with autism. However, because the study used only six subjects with autism, and because the spatialresolution of PET imaging is relatively poor, these results should be considered preliminary.A subsequent fMRI study scanned normally developing adults and adults with HFA while performing a "reading themind in the eyes" task—viewing a photo of a human’s eyes and choosing which of two adjectives better describes theperson’s mental state, versus a gender discrimination control.[67] The authors found activity in orbitofrontal cortex,STS, and amygdala in normal subjects, and found no amygdala activation and abnormal STS activation in subjectswith autism.A more recent PET study looked brain activity in individuals with HFA and Asperger syndrome while viewingHeider-Simmel animations (see above) versus a random motion control.[68] In contrast to normally developingsubjects, those with autism showed no STS or FFA activation, and significantly less mPFC and amygdala activation.Activity in extrastriate regions V3 and LO was identical across the two groups, suggesting intact lower-level visualprocessing in the subjects with autism. The study also reported reduced significantly less functional connectivitybetween STS and V3 in the autism group. Note, however, that decreased temporal correlation between activity inSTS and V3 would be expected simply from the lack of an evoked response in STS to intent-laden animations insubjects with autism; a more informative analysis would be to compute functional connectivity after regressing outevoked responses from all time series.A subsequent study, using the incongruent/congruent gaze shift paradigm described above, found that in high-functioning adults with autism, STS activation was undifferentiated while watching a human shift gaze toward a target and toward adjacent empty space.[69] The lack of additional STS processing in the incongruent state may suggest that these subjects fail to form an expectation of what the actor should do given contextual information, or

Theory of mind 63

that information about the violation of this expectation doesn’t reach STS; both explanations involve an impairmentin the ability to link eye gaze shifts with intentional explanations. This study also found a significant anticorrelationbetween STS activation in the incongruent-congruent contrast and social subscale score on the Autism DiagnosticInterview-Revised, but not scores on the other subscales.

Non-human theory of mindAs the title of Premack and Woodruff's 1978 article "Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?" indicates, it isalso important to ask if other animals besides humans have a genetic endowment and social environment that allowsthem to acquire a theory of mind in the same way that human children do. This is a contentious issue because of theproblem of inferring from animal behavior the existence of thinking, of the existence of a concept of self orself-awareness, or of particular thoughts. One difficulty with non-human studies of ToM is the lack of sufficientnumbers of naturalistic observation, giving insight into what the evolutionary pressures might be on a species'development of theory of mind.Non-human research still has a major place in this field, however, and is especially useful in illuminating whichnonverbal behaviors signify components of theory of mind, and in pointing to possible stepping points in theevolution of what many claim to be a uniquely human aspect of social cognition. While it is difficult to studyhuman-like theory of mind and mental states in species which we do not yet describe as "minded" at all, and aboutwhose potential mental states we have an incomplete understanding, researchers can focus on simpler components ofmore complex capabilities. For example, many researchers focus on animals' understanding of intention, gaze,perspective, or knowledge (or rather, what another being has seen). Call and Tomasello's study[70] that looked atunderstanding of intention in orangutans, chimpanzees and children showed that all three species understood thedifference between accidental and intentional acts. Part of the difficulty in this line of research is that observedphenomena can often be explained as simple stimulus-response learning, as it is in the nature of any theorizers ofmind to have to extrapolate internal mental states from observable behavior. Recently, most non-human theory ofmind research has focused on monkeys and great apes, who are of most interest in the study of the evolution ofhuman social cognition. Other studies relevant to attributions theory of mind have been conducted using plovers [71]

and dogs [72] , and have shown preliminary evidence of understanding attention—one precursor of theory ofmind—in others.There has been some controversy over the interpretation of evidence purporting to show theory of mind ability—orinability—in animals. Two examples serve as demonstration: first, Povinelli et al. (1990)[73] presented chimpanzeeswith the choice of two experimenters from which to request food: one who had seen where food was hidden, and onewho, by virtue of one of a variety of mechanisms (having a bucket or bag over his head; a blindfold over his eyes; orbeing turned away from the baiting) does not know, and can only guess. They found that the animals failed in mostcases to differentially request food from the "knower." By contrast, Hare, Call, and Tomasello (2001)[74] found thatsubordinate chimpanzees were able to use the knowledge state of dominant rival chimpanzees to determine whichcontainer of hidden food they approached.

See also

• Autism• Cephalopod intelligence• Cetacean intelligence• Consciousness

• Empathy• Identity theory of mind• Mental body• Mind

• The Mind of anApe

• Mind-body problem• Mirror neurons• Philosophy of mind

• Quantum mind• Social

neuroscience

Theory of mind 64

References• Excerpts taken from: Davis, E. (2007) Mental Verbs in Nicaraguan Sign Language and the Role of Language in

Theory of Mind. Undergraduate senior thesis, Barnard College, Columbia University.

External links• The Computational Theory of Mind [75]

• The Identity Theory of Mind [76]

• Sally-Anne and Smarties tests [77]

• Scientists Say Everyone Can Read Minds [78]

• Mind Videos [79]

• Functional Contextualism [80]

• Relational Frame Theory [81]

References[1] Premack, D. G. & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526.[2] Premack, D. G. & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526.[3] Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In A. Whiten (Ed.), Natural theories of mind:

Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading (pp. 233-251). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.[4] Bruner, J. S. (1981).Intention in the structure of action and interaction. In L. P. Lipsitt & C. K. Rovee-Collier (Eds.), Advances in infancy

research. Vol. 1 (pp. 41-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.[5] Gordon, R. M. (1996).'Radical' simulationism. In P. Carruthers & P. K. Smith, Eds. Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.[6] Premack, D. G. & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526.[7] Courtin, C. (2000) The impact of sign language on the cognitive development of deaf children: The case of theories of mind. Cognition,

77,25-31.[8] Courtin, C., & Melot, A.-M. (2005) Metacognitive development of deaf children: Lessons from the appearance-reality and false belief tasks.

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 266-276.[9] Demetriou, A., Mouyi, A., & Spanoudis, G. (2010). The development of mental processing. Nesselroade, J. R. (2010). Methods in the study

of life-span human development: Issues and answers. In W. F. Overton (Ed.), Biology, cognition and methods across the life-span. Volume 1of the Handbook of life-span development (pp. 36-55), Editor-in-chief: R. M. Lerner. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

[10] Premack, D. G. and Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526.[11] Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relations frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition.

New York; Kluwer Academic/Plenum.[12] Rehfeldt, R. A., and Barnes-Holmes, Y., (2009). Derived Relational Responding: Application for learners with autism and other

development disabilities. Context Press; New Harbinger Publications, Inc.[13] Carruthers, P. (1996). Simulation and self-knowledge: a defence of the theory-theory. In P. Carruthers & P.K. Smith, Eds. Theories of

theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[14] Gordon, R.M. (1996). 'Radical' simulationism. In P. Carruthers & P.K. Smith, Eds. Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.[15] Gordon, R.M. (1996). 'Radical' simulationism. In P. Carruthers & P.K. Smith, Eds. Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.[16] http:/ / www. contextualpsychology. org/ functional_contextualism_0[17] Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In A. Whiten (Ed.), Natural theories of mind:

Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading (pp. 233-251). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.[18] Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In A. Whiten (Ed.), Natural theories of mind:

Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading (pp. 233-251). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.[19] Dennett, D. C. (1987). Reprint of Intentional systems in cognitive ethology: The Panglossian paradigm defended (to p. 260). The Brain and

Behavioral Sciences, 6, 343-390.[20] Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Distinguishing intentional from accidental actions in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan

troglodytes), and human children (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112, 192-206.[21] Meltzoff, A. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental

Psychology, 31, 838-850.[22] Gagliardi, J. L., et al. (1995). Seeing and knowing: Knowledge attribution versus stimulus control in adult humans (Homo sapiens). Journal

of Comparative Psychology, 109, 107-114.

Theory of mind 65

[23] Meltzoff, A. N. (2002). Imitation as a mechanism of social cognition: Origins of empathy, theory of mind, and the representation of action.In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 6-25). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

[24] Horowitz, A. (2003). Do humans ape? or Do apes human? Imitation and intention in humans and other animals. Journal of ComparativePsychology, 17, 325-336.

[25] Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children'sunderstanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103-128.

[26] Zaitchik, D. (1990). When representations conflict with reality: the preschooler’s problem with false beliefs and “false” photographs.Cognition, 35, 41-68.

[27] Leslie, A., & Thaiss, L. (1992). Domain specificity in conceptual development. Cognition, 43, 225-51.[28] Sabbagh, M.A., & Moses L.J. (2006). Executive functioning and preschoolers’ understanding of false beliefs, false photographs, and false

signs. Child Development, 77(4), 1034-1049.[29] Meltzoff, A. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental

Psychology, 31, 838-850.[30] Leslie, A. M. (1991). Theory of mind impairment in autism. In A. Whiten (Ed.), Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and

simulation of everyday mindreading (pp. 63-77). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.[31] Moore, S. (2002). Asperger Syndrome and the Elementary School Experience. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism Asperger Publishing

Company.[32] Baker, J. (2003). Social Skills Training: for children and adolescents with Asperger Syndrome and Social-Communication Problems.

Mission, KS: Autism Asperger Publishing Company.[33] Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U (1985). " Does the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'? (http:/ / ruccs. rutgers. edu/ ~aleslie/

Baron-Cohen Leslie & Frith 1985. pdf)" (PDF). Cognition 21 (1): 37–46. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8). PMID 2934210 (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 2934210). . Retrieved 2008-02-16.

[34] Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In A. Whiten, Ed., Natural theories of mind:Evolution, development, and simulation of everyday mindreading (233-251). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

[35] Leslie, A. M. (1991). Theory of mind impairment in autism. In A. Whiten, Ed., Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development, andsimulation of everyday mindreading. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

[36] Hobson, R.P. (1995). Autism and the development of mind. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.[37] Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In A. Whiten, Ed., Natural theories of mind:

Evolution, development, and simulation of everyday mindreading (233-251). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.[38] Leslie, A. M. (1991). Theory of mind impairment in autism. In A. Whiten (Ed.), Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and

simulation of everyday mindreading (pp. 63-77). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.[39] Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In A. Whiten (Ed.), Natural theories of mind:

Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading (pp. 233-251). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.[40] Dapretto, M., et al. (2006). Understanding emotions in others: mirror neuron dysfunction in children with autism spectrum disorders. Nature

Neuroscience, 9, 28-30[41] Gallagher and Frith, (2003) "Functional imaging of 'theory of mind'," Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol. 7, No. 2, 77-83[42] Saxe and Kanwisher (2003), "People thinking about thinking people: The role of the temporo-parietal junction in 'theory of mind',"

NeuroImage 19, 1835-1842[43] Saxe et al. (2006), "Reading minds versus following rules: Dissociating theory of mind and executive control in the brain," Social

Neuroscience 1 (3-4), 284-298[44] Saxe and Powell (2006), "It's the Thought That Counts: Specific Brain Regions for One Component of Theory of Mind," Psychological

Science Vol. 17, No. 8, 692-699[45] Decety and Lamm (2007), "The Role of the Right Temporoparietal Junction in Social Interaction: How Low-Level Computational Processes

Contribute to Meta-Cognition," Neuroscientist Vol. 13, No. 6, 580-593[46] Mitchell (2008), "Activity in Right Temporo-Parietal Junction is Not Selective for Theory-of-Mind," Cerebral Cortex[47] Castelli et al. (2002), "Movement and Mind: A Functional Imaging Study of Perception and Interpretation of Complex Intentional

Movement Patterns," NeuroImage[48] Martin and Weisberg (2003), "Neural Foundations For Understanding Social And Mechanical Concepts," Cognitive Neuropsychology

20(3-6), 575-587[49] Schultz et al. (2003), "The role of the fusiform face area in social cognition: Implications for the pathobiology of autism," Philosophical

Transactions of Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1430), 415–427[50] Schultz et al. (2005), "Activation in Posterior Superior Temporal Sulcus Parallels Parameter Inducing the Percept of Animacy," Neuron Vol.

45, 625-635[51] Allison et al. (2000), "Social perception from visual cues: role of the STS region," Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4:7, 267-278[52] Morris et al. (2008), "Perceived causality influences brain activity evoked by biological motion," Social Neuroscience 3(1), 16-25[53] Pelphrey et al. (2004), "Grasping the Intentions of Others: The Perceived Intentionality of an Action Influences Activity in the Superior

Temporal Sulcus during Social Perception," Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16:10, 1706-1716[54] Mosconi et al. (2005), "Taking an 'intentional stance' on eye-gaze shifts: A functional neuroimaging study of social perception in children,"

NeuroImage 27, 247-252

Theory of mind 66

[55] Brass et al. (2007), "Investigating Action Understanding: Inferential Processes versus Action Simulation," Current Biology 17, 2117-2121[56] Saxe et al. (2004), "A region of right posterior superior temporal sulcus response to observed intentional actions," Neuropsychologia 42,

1435-1446[57] Samson, D., Apperly, I.A., Chiavarino, C., & Humphreys, G.W. (2004). Left temporoparietal junction is necessary for representing someone

else's belief. Nature Neuroscience,7(5):499-500.[58] Stone, V.E., & Gerrans, P. (2006). What's domain-specific about theory of mind. Social Neuroscience, 1 (3-4), 309-319.[59] Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169-192.[60] Iacoboni, M., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Gallese, V., Buccino, G., Mazziotta, J.C. (2005). Grasping the intentions of others with one's own mirror

neuron system. PLoS Biology, 3(3), 529-535.[61] Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2(12), 493-501.[62] Frith U, Frith CD (2003). " Development and neurophysiology of mentalizing (http:/ / rstb. royalsocietypublishing. org/ content/ 358/ 1431/

459. full. pdf)" (PDF). Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 358 (1431): 459–73. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1218 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1098/rstb. 2002. 1218). PMID 12689373 (http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 12689373). PMC 1693139 (http:/ / www. pubmedcentral. nih.gov/ articlerender. fcgi?tool=pmcentrez& artid=1693139). .

[63] Meltzoff, A.N., & Decety, J. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: A rapprochement between developmental psychologyand cognitive neuroscience. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 358, 491-500.

[64] Sommerville, J. A., & Decety, J. (2006). Weaving the fabric of social interaction: Articulating developmental psychology and cognitiveneuroscience in the domain of motor cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 179-200.

[65] Happe et al. (1996), "'Theory of mind' in the brain. Evidence from a PET scan study of Asperger syndrome," NeuroReport 8: 197-201[66] Fletcher et al. (1995), "Other minds in the brain: a functional imaging study of ‘theory of mind’ in story comprehension," Cognition 57,

109-128[67] Baron-Cohen et al. (1999), "Social intelligence in the normal and autistic brain: an fMRI study," European Journal of Neuroscience 11:

1891-1898[68] Castelli et al. (2002), "Autism, Asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states to animated shapes," Brain 125:

1839-1849[69] Pelphrey et al. (2005), "Neural basis of eye gaze processing deficits in autism," Brain 128: 1038-1048[70] Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Distinguishing intentional from accidental actions in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan

troglodytes), and human children (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112, 192-206.[71] Ristau, C. (1991). Aspects of the cognitive ethology of an injury-feigning bird, the piping plovers. In C. A. Ristau (Ed.), Cognitive ethology:

The minds of other animals. Essays in honor of Donald R. Griffin (pp. 91-126). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.[72] Horowitz, A. (2009). Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis familiaris) dyadic play. Animal Cognition, 12, 107-118.[73] Povinelli, D.J., Nelson, K.E., & Boysen, S.T. (1990). Inferences about guessing and knowing by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of

Comparative Psychology, 104, 203-210.[74] Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2001). Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know and do not know? Animal Behavior, 61, 139-151.[75] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ computational-mind/[76] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ mind-identity/[77] http:/ / www. psychology. nottingham. ac. uk/ staff/ plm/ c81ind/ lecture6. pdf[78] http:/ / www. livescience. com/ humanbiology/ 050427_mind_readers. html[79] http:/ / www. mindvideos. com[80] http:/ / www. contextualpsychology. org/ functional_contextualism_0/[81] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Relational_frame_theory& oldid=287411203/

Hard problem of consciousness 67

Hard problem of consciousnessThe term hard problem of consciousness, coined by David Chalmers[1] , refers to the difficult problem ofexplaining why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences. Chalmers contrasts this with the "easy problems" ofexplaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problemsare easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. Thatis, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistentwith the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience isdistinct from this set, and he assumes that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of allthe relevant functions is explained".[2]

Formulation of the problemVarious formulations of the "hard problem":• "Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?"• "How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"• "Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"• "Why do qualia exist?"• "Why is there a subjective component to experience?"• "Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"

HistoryIt has been argued that the hard problem has scholarly antecedents considerably earlier than Chalmers.Gottfried Leibniz wrote:

Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable onmechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were amachine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased insize, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, weshould, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything bywhich to explain a perception.[3]

Isaac Newton wrote in a letter to Henry Oldenburg:to determine by what modes or actions light produceth in our minds the phantasm of colour is not soeasie.[4]

T.H. Huxley remarked:how it is that any thing so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritatingnervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed hislamp".[5]

Responses

Scientific attemptsThere have been scientific attempts to explain subjective aspects of consciousness, which is related to the binding problem in neuroscience. Many eminent theorists, including Francis Crick and Roger Penrose, have worked in this field. Nevertheless, even as sophisticated accounts are given, it is unclear if such theories address the hard problem. Patricia Smith Churchland has famously remarked about Penrose's theories that "Pixie dust in the synapses is about

Hard problem of consciousness 68

as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."[6]

Consciousness is fundamental or elusiveSome philosophers, including Chalmers himself, argue that consciousness is a fundamental constituent of theuniverse, a form of panpsychism sometimes referred to as Hylopathism.Thomas Nagel has posited that we can, in principle, never have an objective account of consciousness.New mysterianism, such as that of Colin McGinn, proposes that the human mind, in its current form, will not be ableto explain consciousness.

Deflationary accountsSome philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett,[7] oppose the idea that there is a hard problem. These theorists argue thatonce we really come to understand what consciousness is, we will realize that the hard problem is an illusion.Notable deflationary accounts include so called Higher-Order Thought (HOT) theories of consciousness.[8]

See also• Consciousness causes collapse• Explanatory gap• Mind-body dichotomy• Philosophy of mind• Qualia• Two dimensionalism

External links• Journal of Consciousness Studies Symposium on the Hard Problem [9]

• Online papers on the hard and easy problem of consciousness [10]

• Online papers on Higher-Order Thought approaches to the hard problem of consciousness [11]

• The Objective Consciousness Revisited - Understanding the Nature of Consciousness [12] by Robert G. Heyward• The Hard Problem Is Dead [13] by Teed Rockwell• You can't argue with a Zombie [14] by Jaron Lanier• Pharoah, M.C. (online). Looking to systems theory for a reductive explanation of phenomenal experience and

evolutionary foundations for higher order thought [15] Retrieved Jan.03 2008.

References[1] The Place of Mind, ed. Brian Cooney[2] "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" (http:/ / www. imprint. co. uk/ chalmers. html), David Chalmers, Journal of Consciousness

Studies 2 (3), 1995, pp. 200-219.[3] Leibniz, Monadology, 17, quoted by Istvan Aranyosi (http:/ / www. personal. ceu. hu/ students/ 03/ Istvan_Aranyosi/ Chapter IV. pdf)[4] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Panpsychism (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ panpsychism/ )[5] The Elements of Physiology and Hygiene: A Text-book for Educational Institutions, by T.H. Huxley & W.J. Youmans. Appleton & Co., 1868

p. 178 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=aVUAAAAAYAAJ)[6] Churchland, Patricia Smith (2002). Brain-wise: studies in neurophilosophy. MIT Press. p. 197. ISBN 026253200X.[7] Dennett, Daniel. "Commentary on Chalmers: Facing Backwards on the Problem of Consciousness" (http:/ / ase. tufts. edu/ cogstud/ papers/

chalmers. htm)[8] Carruthers, Peter. " Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ consciousness-higher/ )". Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. .[9] http:/ / consc. net/ responses. html#jcs[10] http:/ / consc. net/ online/ 1. 2d[11] http:/ / consc. net/ online/ 1. 4a

Hard problem of consciousness 69

[12] http:/ / www. cgjungpage. org/ index. php?option=com_content& task=view& id=532& Itemid=40[13] http:/ / users. california. com/ ~mcmf/ hardproblem. html[14] http:/ / www. davidchess. com/ words/ poc/ lanier_zombie. html[15] http:/ / homepage. ntlworld. com/ m. pharoah/

Evolutionary neuroscienceEvolutionary neuroscience is an interdisciplinary scientific research field that attempts to understand the evolutionand natural history of nervous system structure and function. The field draws on concepts and findings from bothneuroscience and evolutionary biology. Historically, most empirical work has been in the area of comparativeneuroanatomy, and modern studies often make use of phylogenetic comparative methods. Selection experiments andexperimental evolution approaches are also being used more frequently. Conceptually and theoretically, the field isrelated to fields as diverse as comparative psychology, neuroethology, developmental neurobiology, evo-devo,behavioral ecology, anthropology and evolutionary psychology.

See also• Evolutionary biology• Evolutionary physiology• Neuroscience• Comparative psychology• Evolutionary psychology• Neuroethology• Animal behavior• Ethology• Glenn Northcutt• Terrence Deacon• Georg F. Striedter

External links• [1] - Brain Behavior and Evolution (Journal)• [2] - "Comparative Vertebrate Neuroanatomy: Evolution and Adaptation" Ann B. Butler, William Hodos• Sinauer.com [3] - Principles of Brain Evolution Georg F. Striedter, University of California, Irvine' (book review,

2004)

References[1] http:/ / content. karger. com/ ProdukteDB/ produkte. asp?Aktion=JournalGuidelines& ProduktNr=223831[2] http:/ / www. wiley. com/ WileyCDA/ WileyTitle/ productCd-0471733830. html[3] http:/ / www. sinauer. com/ detail. php?id=8206

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness 70

Electromagnetic theories of consciousnessThe electromagnetic field theory of consciousness is a theory that says the electromagnetic field generated by thebrain (measurable by electrocorticography) is the actual carrier of conscious experience. This theory was initiallyproposed by Susan Pockett, Johnjoe McFadden[1] [2] [3] and E. Roy John. Related is Andrew and AlexanderFingelkurts theory "Operational Architectonics framework of brain-mind functioning".[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

OutlineThe starting point for the theory is the fact that every time a neuron fires to generate an action potential and apostsynaptic potential in the next neuron down the line, it also generates a disturbance to the surroundingelectromagnetic (EM) field. Information coded in neuron firing patterns is therefore reflected into the brain's EMfield. Locating consciousness in the brain's EM field, rather than the neurons, has the advantage of neatly accountingfor how information located in millions of neurons scattered throughout the brain can be unified into a singleconscious experience (sometimes called the binding problem): the information is unified in the EM field. In this wayEM field consciousness can be considered to be 'joined-up information'.

AdvantagesThis theory accounts for several otherwise puzzling facts, such as the finding that attention and awareness tend to becorrelated with the synchronous firing of multiple neurons rather than the firing of individual neurons. When neuronsfire together their EM fields generate stronger EM field disturbances; so synchronous neuron firing will tend to havea larger impact on the brain's EM field (and thereby consciousness) than the firing of individual neurons. Howevertheir generation by synchronous firing is not the only important characteristic of conscious electromagnetic fields —in Pockett's original theory, spatial pattern is the defining feature of a conscious (as opposed to a non-conscious)field.

Influence on brain functionThe different EM field theories disagree as to the role of the proposed conscious EM field on brain function. InMcFadden's CEMI field theory, the brain's global EM field modifies the electric charges across neural membranesand thereby influences the probability that particular neurons will fire, providing a feed-back loop that drives freewill. However in the theories of Susan Pockett and E. Roy John, there is no necessary causal link between theconscious EM field and our consciously willed actions.

ImplicationsIf true, the theory has major implications for efforts to design consciousness into Artificial intelligence machines[9] ;current microprocessor technology is designed to transmit information linearly along electrical channels, and moregeneral electromagnetic effects are seen as a nuisance and damped out; if this theory is right, however, this is directlycounterproductive to the process of creating an artificially-intelligent computer, which on some versions of thetheory would instead have electromagnetic fields that synchronized its outputs—or in the original version of thetheory would have spatially patterned electromagnetic fields.

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness 71

See also• Telepathy• Quantum mind• Simulated reality

Further reading• Global workspace model of consciousness and its electromagnetic correlates [10]

• Consciousness Based on Wireless? [11]

References[1] Johnjoe McFadden (2002). " The Conscious Electromagnetic Information (Cemi) Field Theory: The Hard Problem Made Easy? (http:/ /

www. surrey. ac. uk/ qe/ pdfs/ mcfadden_JCS2002b. pdf)". Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (8): 45–60. .[2] Johnjoe McFadden (2002). " Synchronous Firing and Its Influence on the Brain’s Electromagnetic Field: Evidence for an Electromagnetic

Field Theory of Consciousness (http:/ / www. surrey. ac. uk/ qe/ pdfs/ cemi_theory_paper. pdf)". Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (4):23–50. .

[3] Jack A. Tuszynski (2006). " 12. The CEMI Field Theory: Seven Clues to the Nature of Consciousness (http:/ / www. surrey. ac. uk/ qe/ pdfs/Seven Clues to the Origin of Consciousness. pdf)". in Springer. The Emerging Physics of Consciousness. Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 385–404. .(the chapter author is Johnjoe McFadden)

[4] Andrew A. Fingelkurts and Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Mapping of the Brain Operational Architectonics (http:/ / www. bm-science. com/team/ chapt3. pdf), published in: Chen, F. J. (ed.) Focus on Brain Mapping Research, Nova Science Publishers, 2005 pp. 59-98

[5] Fingelkurts An.A, Fingelkurst Al.A, operational architectonics of the human eeg (http:/ / www. bm-science. com/ team/ art18. pdf)Operational architectonics of the human brain biopotential field: Towards solving the mind-brain problem. Brain and Mind. 2001. V. 2. No 3.P. 261-296.

[6] Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Making complexity simpler: Multivariability and metastability in the brain. InternationalJournal of Neuroscience. 2004, V. 114. No 7. P. 843-862. (http:/ / www. bm-science. com/ team/ art30. pdf)

[7] Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Timing in cognition and EEG brain dynamics: discreteness versus continuity. CognitiveProcessing. 2006, V. 7. No 3. P. 135-162. (http:/ / www. bm-science. com/ team/ art39. pdf)

[8] Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Carlos F.H. Neves, Phenomenological architecture of a mind and OperationalArchitectonics of the brain: the unified metastable continuum. Journal of New Mathematics and Natural Computing, 2009, V. 5. No 1. P.221-244 (http:/ / www. bm-science. com/ team/ art53. pdf)

[9] Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Brain and mind Operational Architectonics and man-made "machine" consciousness.Cognitive Processing (2009) 10(2):105-111. (http:/ / www. bm-science. com/ team/ art54_in-press. pdf)

[10] http:/ / www. annalsofian. org/ text. asp?2008/ 11/ 3/ 146/ 42933/[11] http:/ / www. wired. com/ news/ technology/ 1,52674-0. html

Consciousness causes collapse 72

Consciousness causes collapseThe quantum mind/body problem refers to the philosophical discussions of the mind/body problem in the contextof quantum mechanics. Since quantum mechanics involves quantum superpositions, which are not perceived byobservers, quantum mechanics apparently places observers in a special position.The founders of quantum mechanics debated the role of the observer, and of them, Wolfgang Pauli and WernerHeisenberg believed that it was the observer that produced collapse. This point of view, which was never fullyendorsed by Niels Bohr, was denounced as mystical and anti-scientific by Albert Einstein. Pauli accepted the term,and described quantum mechanics as lucid mysticism.[1]

Unlike Heisenberg and Bohr, who always described quantum mechanics in logical positivist terms, Hugh Everetttook the wavefunction of quantum mechanics as a real description of the world. In the many-worlds interpretation,the memories of the observer splits at every measurement, leading to the subjective appearance of collapse.This observation was separated from many-worlds interpretation by Eugene Wigner, who proposed that theconsciousness of the observer is what causes collapse of the wavefunction, independent of any realist philosophy orsplitting observers. Colloquially known as "consciousness causes collapse", this interpretation of quantummechanics states that observation by a conscious observer is what makes the wave function collapse.The interpretation identifies the non-linear probabilistic projection transformation which occurs during measurementwith the selection of a definite state by a mind from the different possibilities which it could have in a quantummechanical superposition.

HistoryIn many philosophies, the conscious mind is seen as a separate entity, existing in a realm not described by physicallaw. Some people claim that this idea gains support from the description of the physical world provided by quantummechanics. Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders ofquantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger,[2] Werner Heisenberg,[3] Wolfgang Pauli,[4] Niels Bohr,[5] andEugene Wigner[6]

The reason is that quantum mechanics requires interpretation before it describes the experience of an observer. Whileparticles and fields are described by a wavefunction, the results of observations are described by classicalinformation which tells you the result. The information about observations is not in the wavefunction, but isadditional random data. The wavefunction only gives the probability of getting different outcomes, and it only turnsinto a probability during the act of measurement.[7]

The nature of observation has often been a point of contention in quantum mechanics,[8] because quantum mechanicsdescribes the experiences of observers with different numbers than it uses to describe material objects. With thenotable exceptions of Louis DeBroglie, Max von Laue, Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein [9] , who believed thatquantum mechanics was a statistical approximation to a deeper reality which is deterministic, most of the founders ofquantum mechanics believed that this problem is purely philosophical. Eugene Wigner went further, and explicitlyidentified it as a quantum version of the mind-body problem.[10]

Classical mind/body problemIn classical mechanics the world is measurable, the measurements are revealing the true state of the world, and thebehavior is deterministic. Given the initial positions and velocities of a collection of the basic particles, the future ofthose particles can be predicted. When these assumptions are applied to an observer the conclusion is that withenough information about the present, the entire future behavior of the observer will be determined. This led manyscientists to reject pre-scientific notions of dualism, and to identify the mind of the observer with the classical stateof the observer's atoms [11] [12]

Consciousness causes collapse 73

Yet even from a classical perspective many philosophers doubt the material description of a hypothetical Newtonianobserver is the only thing you need in order to understand internal experience.[13] [14] [15] Even though the atoms ofthe brain are constantly replaced, the information gets copied into new atoms, and perception continues into the newbrain. In certain contrived thought experiments, this type of copying leads to strange outcomes. For example, DanielDennett talks about the situation where a conscious Newtonian observer is duplicated, by having a second systemstore all the information in the brain. Once the second system is built, the two systems make two separate observerswhich contain the same information. The two observers start out exactly the same and receive the same sensoryinput, but eventually diverge. The divergence could be due to randomness, or glitches, or because the sensory inputis slightly different, the reason is not important. The important thing is that one observer has been copied into twosystems, and in such a situation it is not clear to this observer into which of the copies their experiences willcontinue.Dennett notes this by assuming that he himself is copied. Before the copies diverge, there is no way for him to knowwhich of the two copies he is. This bit of information only becomes apparent to Dennett after the two copies becomedifferent. He cannot know this information before the divergence, even if he is given full information about thematerial state of both copies.[16]

Transition to quantum mechanicsThe introduction of quantum mechanics substantially changed the status of the observer and measurements. Themeasurement problem studies how a classical observer can exist in a quantum world. The quantum world describessuperpositions of very different states, but our perception is that of “classical” states in the macroscopic world, thatis, a comparatively small subset of the states allowed by the quantum-mechanical superposition principle, havingonly a few, but determinate and robust, properties, such as position, momentum, etc. The question of why and howour experience of a “classical” world emerges from quantum mechanics thus lies at the heart of the foundationalproblems of quantum theory."[11]The determinism and materialism of classical mechanics, divorced or at least distanced science from manypre-scientific philosophies that held various dualist perspectives towards the mind. Quantum mechanics made somedualist ideas about the mind/body problem acceptable again within mainstream science.

Observation in quantum mechanicsIn the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics can only be used to predict the probabilities for differentoutcomes of pre-specified observations. What constitutes an "observer" or an "observation" is not directly specifiedby the theory, and the behavior of a system after observation is completely different than the usual behavior. Duringobservation, the wavefunction describing the system collapses to one of several options. If there is no observation,this collapse does not occur, and none of the options ever become less likely.Unlike classical mechanics, in quantum mechanics, there is no naive way of identifying the true state of the world.The wavefunction that describes a system spreads out into an ever larger superposition of different possiblesituations. Schrodinger's cat is an illustration of this: after interacting with a quantum system, the wavefunction ofthe cat describes it as a superposition of dead and alive.It can be predicted using quantum mechanics that an observer observing a quantum superposition will turn into asuperposition of different observers seeing different things. Just like Schrodinger's cat, the observer will have awavefunction which describes all the possible outcomes. Still, in actual experience, an observer never feels asuperposition, but always feels that one of the outcomes has occurred with certainty. This apparent conflict betweena wavefunction description and classical experience is called the problem of observation. The founders of quantummechanics were aware of this problem, and each had a different opinion about its resolution:Albert Einstein, and with him Louis DeBroglie and later David Bohm, believed that quantum mechanics was incomplete, that the wavefunction was only a statistical description of a deeper structure which was deterministic.

Consciousness causes collapse 74

Einstein saw quantum mechanics as analogous to statistical mechanics, and the wavefunction as just a peculiarstatistical device for observers who are ignorant of the values of the hidden variables underneath. This point of viewmakes the extra information not at all mysterious – the results of observations are simply revealing the values of thehidden variables. In 1964, John Bell realized that local hidden variables set a limit on the degree to which the resultsof distant experiments can be correlated, a limit which is violated in quantum mechanics. The experimentalobservation of violations of Bell's inequality showed that the original local hidden variables of Einstein Podolski andRosen could not be correct.[17] Non-local hidden variables are still a possibility, and David Bohm was able toexplicitly formulate a nonlocal theory which reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics. But nonlocal theoriesare very arbitrary, and the new variables in Bohm's theory are inaccessible to experiments. So most physicists do notaccept hidden variable interpretations as compelling.[18]

Niels Bohr believed that quantum mechanics was a complete description of nature, but that it was simply a languageill suited to describing the world of everyday experience, and that in the human realm experiences were described byclassical mechanics and by probability. This point of view, the Copenhagen interpretation, was shared by Max Bornand Werner Heisenberg and became the standard view. It requires a demarcation line, a boundary, above which anobject would cease to be quantum and would start to be classical. Bohr never specified this line precisely, since hebelieved that it was not a question of physics, but of pure philosophy. Von Neumann, in his analysis ofmeasurements, interpreted the demarcation line as the point where wave-function collapse occurs, and he showedthat within quantum mechanics, the point of collapse is largely arbitrary, past the first incoherent interaction with acomplex enough object[19]

In 1961, Eugene Wigner reformulated Schrödinger's cat using a conscious observer, Wigner's friend. He concludedthat the demarcation line which Bohr refused to specify was at the point of conscious experience. Wigner's positionwas that the wavefunction collapses because consciousness observes it, placing a non-scientific layer at thefoundation of quantum mechanics, a non-scientific layer which could be interpreted as mystical, since it treatsconscious observation as a separate ingredient.

Decoherence and modern interpretationsHugh Everett III proposed an entirely mechanistic interpretation of quantum mechanics that has come to be knownas the many-worlds interpretation. In Everett's description, the whole universe is an enormous wavefunction,describing a dizzying multiplying possibility of worlds. In this formalism, observers were to be treated as computersor as any other measuring device, their memories written out on magnetic tape [20] . To understand their experiences,you would focus on the answer which these observers would give to questions asked by an external observer. Everettbelieved that this line of reasoning showed that any interpretational problems in quantum mechanics were entirelyphilosophical, because he could show that there was no conflict between deterministic evolution of the wavefunctionwith the subjective randomness experienced by the observers, when analyzed using the theory itself [21] .Since the physical description in Everett's picture is the deterministic wavefunction, the issue of interpretation is onlyrelevant when analyzing the experience of an observer. The answer to the question "what does this observer see?" isonly ambiguous to the extent that the specification of the observer is imprecise. An observer's state is a particularhigh dimensional projection of the wavefunction, but not all parts of the wavefunction describe a single observer –only those parts which describe a consistent past of memories. In Everett's picture, the interpretation is aclarification, it tells you which observer you are examining. But the description of the observer is now a major chunkof the description of the world--- it includes a lot of extra information not present in the original wavefunction.[22]

This extra information includes most observable parameters in our universe. For example, if the universe started outperfectly homogeneous and isotropic, the universal wavefunction would still be homogeneous and isotropic. But forany observer, the description would be irregular describing a different pattern of galaxies, stars and planets. Theinformation which specifies the observer specifies the positions of all those stars, the distance to Jupiter, the locationof the moon in its orbit, the contents of today's newspaper, etc. None of this is in the universal wavefunction, that

Consciousness causes collapse 75

object is only a quantum superposition of all possible worlds. Most of the nontrivial information is in the history ofpast random events.Everett's approach has been elaborated into a field of study called decoherence, which attempts to identify the way inwhich classical behaviour emerges from quantum mechanics when the systems become large.[23]

Dualist interpretationsThe description of the observer in decoherence approaches, as in the Copenhagen approach, always involves extrainformation, the information which specifies the outcome of all the random events in the past. This informationanswers the question "which observer?" in many-worlds, and correspondingly answers the question "what outcomesof past measurements?" in the Copenhagen approach.The presence of large amounts of additional information has been interpreted as a component associated with theconsciousness of the observer, because it is data which is associated with the observer, not with the matter fromwhich the observer is built. Since this includes most information about the universe, considering the quantummechanical description to be complete leads to a reevaluation of the nature of the observer.[24]

"Consciousness causes collapse"The involvement of consciousness in the collapse of the wave function has been summarized thus:

The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated withquantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot betreated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which performmeasurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.[25]

This interpretation attributes the process of wave function collapse (directly, indirectly, or even partially) toconsciousness itself.The consciousness causes collapse interpretation was Wigner's motivation for introducing Wigner's friend byasserting that collapse occurs at the first "conscious" observer. Supporters assert this is not a revival of substancedualism, since (in a ramification of this view) consciousness and objects are "entangled" and cannot be consideredseparate.

CriticismSome critics say that this theory does not explain which things have sufficient consciousness to collapse the wavefunction ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled livingcreature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"[26] ). It isalso not clear whether measuring devices might also be considered conscious.Opponents assert that it is unfalsifiable, and also does not simplify our physical understanding of the universe, and istherefore scientifically uninteresting .Wigner believed that consciousness is necessary for the quantum mechanical process. See Consciousess andmeasurement. There are other possible solutions to the Wigner's friend thought experiment which do not requireconsciousness to be different from other physical processes. See, Consciousness and Superposition.

Consciousness causes collapse 76

Alternative interpretationsThe Many worlds interpretation avoids the need to postulate that consciousness causes collapse — indeed, thatcollapse occurs at all. Instead, observation of a superposed system sends the observer into a superposition, eachelement of which sees a (different) single outcome to the experiment. See Wigner's friend in Many Worlds.According to objective collapse theories, wave function collapse occurs when a superposed systems reaches a certainobjective threshold of size, complexity etc. Thus, the fact that observers see an un-superposed classical world is aside-effect of the fact that they are macroscopic, and collapse can occur in the absence of observers.

Quantum mysticism, New Age and New Thought beliefWolfgang Pauli interpreted the laws of quantum mechanics as leading to a lucid Platonic mysticism, a positionintermediate between the skepticism of Western science centered on objective observer independent facts, and thephilosophies of ancient Eastern mysticism which put primary emphasis on conscious experience. Werner Heisenbergreported on Pauli's position, and his own, as follows:

...Pauli once spoke of two limiting conceptions, both of which have been extraordinarily fruitful in the historyof human thought, although no genuine reality corresponds to them. At one extreme is the idea of an objectiveworld, pursuing its regular course in space and time, independently of any kind of observing subject; this hasbeen the guiding image of modern science. At the other extreme is the idea of a subject, mysticallyexperiencing the unity of the world and no longer confronted by an object or by any objective world; this hasbeen the guiding image of Asian mysticism. Our thinking moves somewhere in the middle, between these twolimiting conceptions; we should maintain the tension resulting from these two opposites.[27]

Fritjof Capra popularizes the subject with The Tao of Physics.[28] In this book, he notes that many of the founders ofquantum mechanics believed that the theory meshes well with ancient Eastern mysticism and philosophy, includingthat of Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism which includes a belief in the transitory, interconnected nature of all thingsand the illusion of separation of thought and existence.The view is also presented in various aspect of the New Thought Movement such as the popular and controversialdocumentaries What the Bleep Do We Know!? and The Secret, alongside some unrelated biological discussions, andis a major plot point in Greg Egan's novel Quarantine, as well as playing a significant role in Charlie Stross's novelThe Atrocity Archives.

See also• Measurement in quantum mechanics• Interpretation of quantum mechanics• Many-worlds interpretation• Quantum indeterminacy• Quantum mysticism• Quantum mind• Quantum Zeno effect• Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness

Consciousness causes collapse 77

Further links and referencespro• Quantum Enigma from Oxford University Press [29]

• PHYSICS TODAY: "Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory" [30] (pdf)• "Quantum Cosmology and the Hard Problem of the Conscious Brain" [31] (pdf)• Mindful Sensationalism: A Quantum Framework for Consciousness. [32]

• Donald Hoffman on Consciousness created reality [33]

• Brian Josephson on QM and consciousness [34]

con• "Quantum mechanics and free will: counter-arguments", Martín López Corredoira [35]

• "The Myth of Quantum Consciousness" by Victor Stenger [36]

• "Critique of Quantum Enigma Physics encounters Consciousness", Martín López Corredoira [37]

neither• David Chalmers' links to consciousness papers [38]

• [4] quantum-mind

References[1] Juan Miguel Marin (2009). "‘Mysticism’ in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy". European Journal of Physics 30: 807–822. doi:

10.1088/0143-0807/30/4/014 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 0143-0807/ 30/ 4/ 014). link (http:/ / www. iop. org/ EJ/ article/ 0143-0807/ 30/ 4/014/ ejp9_4_014. pdf?request-id=9350419a-e5ea-42e2-b5f3-7878a09dfe42), summarized here (http:/ / www. physorg. com/ news163670588.html|are/ )

[2] By Michel Bitbol, Olivier Darrigol, Erwin Schrödinger,Institut autrichien de Paris[3] from (http:/ / www. centerforsacredsciences. org/ teachings/ science. html) "Quantum theory has led the physicists far away from the simple

materialistic views that prevailed in the natural science of the nineteenth century" Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, (New York:Harper & Row Publishers, (1962), 128

[4] "I confess, that very different from you, I do find sometimes scientific inspiration in mysticism … but this is counterbalanced by animmediate sense for mathematics." -- W. Pauli, from (http:/ / www. todayinsci. com/ P/ Pauli_Wolfgang/ PauliWolfgang-Quotations. htm)

[5] John Honner (2005). "Niels Bohr and the Mysticism of Nature". Zygon Journal of Science and Religion 17-3: 243–253.[6] Wigner -, Eugene -; Henry Margenau - (1967-12 -). " - Remarks on the Mind Body Question, in Symmetries and Reflections, Scientific

Essays - (http:/ / link. aip. org/ link/ ?AJP/ 35/ 1169/ 1)". American Journal of Physics - '35 - (12 -): 1169–1170 -. doi:10.1119/1.1973829+++(inactive 2009-10-19) . -. Retrieved 2009-07-30 -.

[7] This is an abbreviated paraphrase of the section entitled "The Language of Quantum Mechanics" in Wigner "Remarks on the Mind-BodyQuestion"

[8] Roger Balian, in :Cini Levy-Leblond eds. "Quantum Theory without reduction" states (p.89): "Ever since the beginning of quantummechanics, the measurement problem has been a subject of sometimes discontinued but nevertheless recurrent concern"

[9] pay link to Einstein letter (http:/ / www. jstor. org/ pss/ 687649) Laue, Schrodinger and Einstein dissent[10] Wigner, E. "Remarks on the Mind-Body Question", Symmetries and Reflections[11] For example, Wigner states in "Remarks on the mind body question":"Until not many years ago, the existence of a mind or soul would have

been passionately denied by most physical scientists. The brilliant successes of mechanistic and, more generally, macroscopic physics and ofchemistry overshadowed the obvious fact that thoughts, desires, and emotions are not made of matter, and it was nearly universally acceptedamong physical scientists that there is nothing beside matter. The epistome of this belief was the conviction that, if we knew the positions andvelocities of all atoms at one instant of time, we could compute the fate of the universe for all future"

[12] Haeckel, Ernst Heinrich Philip (1992). The Riddle of the Universe. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879757469, 9780879757465.[13] Kirk, Robert. 1974. "Sentience and Behaviour", Mind, vol. 83, pp. 43–60.[14] Nagel, Thomas. 1970. "Armstrong on the Mind", Philosophical Review, vol. 79, pp. 394–403.[15] Nagel, Thomas. 1974. "What is it Like to Be a Bat?" Philosophical Review, vol. 83, pp. 435–450.[16] Dennett, Hofstadter, "The Mind's I" Basic Books[17] Amir D. Aczel, "entanglement"[18] Although recently, the holographic principle of quantum gravity requires nonlocality for completely different reasons, which leads Gerard 't

Hooft to propose that hidden variables should be revived. These hidden variables are different than Bohm's, since there would be too few ofthem to allow for quantum computation

[19] Von Neumann, J., "Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics"

Consciousness causes collapse 78

[20] More precisely: "It will suffice for his purposes that observers possess memories, i.e. parts of a relatively permanent nature whose states arein correspondence with the past experience of the observer", quoting Bohm/Hiley: What this means is that, as in a computer whose memoriesare contained in the state of a disc, some aspects of the physical state of the observer, presumably within his brain, serves as the basis of his [orher] memories" Bohm & Hiley p.297

[21] De Witt, B. and Graham, M. "The Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", Princeton University Press[22] Quoting Bohm/Hiley: It is evident that in a series of measurements, the number of partial awarenesses must multiply indefinitely. There are

correspondingly many possible branches consisting of such sequences of partial awarenesses" p.299[23] Gell-Mann, M., "The Quark and the Jaguar", pp. 135-176[24] E.J. Squires "An Attempt to Understand the Many-worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory", collected in M. Cini, J.M- Levy-Leblond eds.

, Quantum Theory without Reduction", ,1990, pp. 151-161[25] Schreiber, Z. The Nine Lives of Schrödingers's Cat (http:/ / arxiv. org/ PS_cache/ quant-ph/ pdf/ 9501/ 9501014v5. pdf)[26] Bell, J.S., 1981, Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists. In C.J. Isham, R. Penrose and D.W. Sciama (eds.), Quantum Gravity 2: A second

Oxford Symposium. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p.611.[27] Heisenberg, W, 1990, "Across the Frontiers", (New York: Harpers and Row) requoted from Marin p. 811[28] Jeremy Bernstein (1982) Science Observed, New York: Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-07340-9, p.333-340[29] http:/ / www. newswise. com/ articles/ view/ 522088/ ?sc=swhr[30] http:/ / www. iafe. uba. ar/ e2e/ phys230/ history/ moon. pdf[31] http:/ / www. math. auckland. ac. nz/ ~king/ Preprints/ pdf/ tuz6. pdf[32] http:/ / xxx. lanl. gov/ PS_cache/ quant-ph/ pdf/ 0108/ 0108039v1. pdf[33] http:/ / www. edge. org/ q2005/ q05_4. html#hoffman[34] http:/ / www. tcm. phy. cam. ac. uk/ ~bdj10/[35] http:/ / www. emergentmind. org/ CorredoiraI3. htm[36] http:/ / www. colorado. edu/ philosophy/ vstenger/ Quantum/ QuantumConsciousness. pdf[37] http:/ / arxiv. org/ PS_cache/ arxiv/ pdf/ 0705/ 0705. 1996v2. pdf[38] http:/ / consc. net/ master. html

Bohm interpretationThe de Broglie–Bohm theory, also called the pilot-wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, and the causalinterpretation, is a quantum theory describing point particles whose motion is determined by a wavefunction.Differently from ordinary quantum theory, these particles always have locations and the evolution of their locationover time is deterministic. The evolution over time of the position of each particle (that is, each particle's velocity)arises from the gradient of the wavefunction (specifically from the [[#Guiding equation|guiding equation]]). Theevolution of the wavefunction over time is given by Schrödinger's equation.The de Broglie–Bohm theory is explicitly non-local. The velocity of any one particle depends on the value of thegradient of the wavefunction which is defined over configuration space and, thus, may depend on the simultaneouspositions of any or all of the other particles in the universe.This theory is deterministic and non-relativistic (relativistic extensions of this theory exist, though they tend tosacrifice determinism). It handles spin and curved spaces without difficulty. It can be modified to handle quantumfield theory. Bell's theorem was inspired by Bell's discovery of the work of David Bohm and his subsequentwondering if the obvious non-locality of the theory could be removed.This theory gives rise to a measurement formalism, analogous to thermodynamics for classical mechanics, whichyields the standard quantum formalism generally associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. The measurementproblem is resolved by this theory since the outcome of an experiment is registered by the configuration of theparticles of the experimental apparatus after the experiment is completed. The familiar wavefunction collapse ofstandard quantum mechanics emerges from an analysis of subsystems and the quantum equilibrium hypothesis.The theory has a number of equivalent [[#Derivations|mathematical formulations]] and has been presented under anumber of different [[#History|names]].

Bohm interpretation 79

OverviewDe Broglie–Bohm theory is based on the following:

There are particles with positions that evolve according to the guiding equation

There is a complex-valued wavefunction evolving according to Schrödinger's equation

That completes the specification of the theory for spinless particles. [[#Extensions|Incorporating spin]] is notdifficult.This theory will agree with the results of standard quantum mechanics if the initial positions of the particles aredistributed according to which will typically be the case in any universe governed by this theory.

Two-slit experiment

The Bohmian trajectories for an electron goingthrough the two-slit experiment.

The double-slit experiment is an illustration of wave-particle duality.In it, a beam of particles (such as photons) travels through a barrierwith two slits removed. If one puts a detector screen on the other side,the pattern of detected particles shows interference fringescharacteristic of waves; however, the detector screen responds toparticles. The system exhibits behaviour of both waves (interferencepatterns) and particles (dots on the screen).

If we modify this experiment so that one slit is closed, no interferencepattern is observed. Thus, the state of both slits affects the final results.We can also arrange to have a minimally invasive detector at one of theslits to see which slit the particle went through. When we do that, theinterference pattern disappears.The Copenhagen interpretation states that the particles are not localisedin space until they are detected, so that, if there is no detector on theslits, there is no matter of fact about what slit has the particle passed through. If one slit has a detector on it, then thewavefunction collapses due to that detection.

In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both slits, but each particle has a well-definedtrajectory and passes through exactly one of the slits. The final position of the particle on the detector screen and theslit through which the particle passes by is determined by the initial position of the particle. Such initial position isnot controllable by the experimenter, so there is an appearance of randomness in the pattern of detection. The wavefunction interferes with itself and guides the particles in such a way that the particles avoid the regions in which theinterference is destructive and are attracted to the regions in which the interference is constructive, giving rise to theinterference pattern on the detector screen.To explain the behavior when the particle is detected to go through one slit, one needs to appreciate the role of theconditional wavefunction and how it gives rise to the collapse of the wavefunction; this is explained below. Thebasic idea is that the environment registering the detection effectively separates the two wave packets inconfiguration space.

Bohm interpretation 80

The Theory

The ontologyThis theory is a theory of particles moving in space-time. Each particle has a definite position at every time .This is the starting point of the theory. The correspondence to our experiences is made by the identification of wherethe particles are and where we witness them to be, as in classical mechanics.The difference between de Broglie–Bohm theory and classical mechanics is not in the ontology, but in the dynamics.In classical mechanics, the acceleration of the particles are given by forces. In de Broglie–Bohm theory, thevelocities of the particles are given by the wavefunction.In what follows below, we will give the setup for one particle moving in followed by the setup for particlesmoving in 3 dimensions. In the first instance, configuration space and real space are the same while in the second,real space is still , but configuration space becomes . While the particle positions themselves are in realspace, the velocity field and wavefunction are on configuration space which is how particles are entangled with eachother in this theory.[[#Extensions|Extensions]] to this theory include spin and more complicated configuration spaces.

We use variations of for particle positions while represents the complex-valued wavefunction onconfiguration space.

Guiding equation

For a single particle moving in , the particle's velocity is given

.

For many particles, we label them as for the th particle and their velocities are given by

.

The key fact to notice is that this velocity field depends on the actual positions of all of the particles in theuniverse. As explained below, in most experimental situations, the influence of all of those particles can beencapsulated into an effective wavefunction for a subsystem of the universe.

Schrödinger's equation

The one particle Schrödinger equation governs the time evolution of a complex-valued wavefunction on . Theequation represents a quantized version of the total energy of a classical system evolving under a real-valuedpotential function on :

For many particles, the equation is the same except that and are now on configuration space, .

This is the same wavefunction of conventional quantum mechanics.

Bohm interpretation 81

The Born RuleIn Bohm's original papers [Bohm 1952] , he discusses how de Broglie–Bohm theory gives rise to the usualmeasurement results of quantum mechanics. The key idea is that this is true if the positions of the particles satisfy thestatistical distribution given by . And that distribution is guaranteed to be true for all time under the guidingequation if the initial distribution of the particles satisfies .For a given experiment, we can postulate this as being true and verify experimentally that it does indeed hold true, asit does. But, as argued in Dürr et al,[1] one needs to argue that this distribution for subsystems is typical. They arguethat by virtue of its equivariance under the dynamical evolution of the system, is the appropriate measure oftypicality for initial conditions of the positions of the particles. They then prove that the vast majority of possibleinitial configurations will give rise to Born rule (i.e., ) statistics for measurement outcomes. In short, in auniverse governed by the de Broglie–Bohm dynamics, Born rule behavior is typical.The situation is thus analogous to the situation in classical statistical physics. A low entropy initial condition will,with overwhelmingly high probability, evolve into a higher entropy state: behavior consistent with the second law ofthermodynamics is typical. There are, of course, anomalous initial conditions which would give rise to violations ofthe second law. However, absent some very detailed evidence supporting the actual realization of one of thosespecial initial conditions, it would be quite unreasonable to expect anything but the actually observed uniformincrease of entropy. Similarly, in the de Broglie–Bohm theory, there are anomalous initial conditions which wouldproduce measurement statistics in violation of the Born rule (i.e., in conflict with the predictions of standardquantum theory). But the typicality theorem shows that, absent some particular reason to believe one of those specialinitial conditions was in fact realized, Born rule behavior is what one should expect.It is in that qualified sense that Born rule is, for the de Broglie–Bohm theory, a theorem rather than (as in ordinaryquantum theory) an additional postulate.

The conditional wave function of a subsystemIn the formulation of the De Broglie–Bohm theory, there is only a wave function for the entire universe (whichalways evolves by the Schrödinger equation). However, once the theory is formulated, it is convenient to introduce anotion of wave function also for subsystems of the universe. Let us write the wave function of the universe as

, where denotes the configuration variables associated to some subsystem (I) of the universe anddenotes the remaining configuration variables. Denote, respectively, by and by the actual configuration

of subsystem (I) and of the rest of the universe. For simplicity, we consider here only the spinless case. Theconditional wave function of subsystem (I) is defined by:

It follows immediately from the fact that satisfies the guiding equation that also theconfiguration satisfies a guiding equation identical to the one presented in the formulation of the theory, withthe universal wave function replaced with the conditional wave function . Also, the fact that is randomwith probability density given by the square modulus of implies that the conditional probability density of

given is given by the square modulus of the (normalized) conditional wave function (in theterminology of Dürr et. al[2] this fact is called the fundamental conditional probability formula).Unlike the universal wave function, the conditional wave function of a subsystem does not always evolves by theSchrödinger equation, but in many situations it does. For instance, if the universal wave function factors as:

then the conditional wave function of subsystem (I) is (up to an irrelevant scalar factor) equal to (this is whatStandard Quantum Theory would regard as the wave function of subsystem (I)). If, in addition, the Hamiltonian doesnot contain an interaction term between subsystems (I) and (II) then does satisfy a Schrödinger equation. Moregenerally, assume that the universal wave function can be written in the form:

Bohm interpretation 82

where solves Schrödinger equation and for all and . Then, again, the conditionalwave function of subsystem (I) is (up to an irrelevant scalar factor) equal to and if the Hamiltonian does notcontain an interaction term between subsystems (I) and (II), satisfies a Schrödinger equation.The fact that the conditional wave function of a subsystem does not always evolve by the Schrödinger equation isrelated to the fact that the usual collapse rule of Standard Quantum Theory emerges from the Bohmian formalismwhen one considers conditional wave functions of subsystems.

Extensions

SpinTo incorporate spin, the wavefunction becomes complex-vector valued. The value space is called spin space; for aspin-1/2 particle, spin space can be taken to be . The guiding equation is modified by taking inner products inspin space to reduce the complex vectors to complex numbers. The Schrödinger equation is modified by adding aPauli spin term.

where is the magnetic moment of the th particle, is the appropriate spin operator acting on the th

particle's spin space, , and are, respectively, the magnetic field and the vector

potential in (all other functions are fully on configuration space), is the charge of the th particle, andis the inner product in spin space ,

For an example of a spin space, a system consisting of two spin 1/2 particle and one spin 1 particle has awavefunctions of the form . That is, its spin space is a 12 dimensional space.

Curved spaceTo extend de Broglie–Bohm theory to curved space (Riemannian manifolds in mathematical parlance), one simplynotes that all of the elements of these equations make sense, such as gradients and Laplacians. Thus, we useequations that have the same form as above. Topological and boundary conditions may apply in supplementing theevolution of Schrödinger's equation.For a de Broglie–Bohm theory on curved space with spin, the spin space becomes a vector bundle over configurationspace and the potential in Schrödinger's equation becomes a local self-adjoint operator acting on that space.[3]

Quantum field theoryIn Dürr et al,[4] [5] the authors describe an extension of de Broglie–Bohm theory for handling creation andannihilation operators. The basic idea is that configuration space becomes the (disjoint) space of all possibleconfigurations of any number of particles. For part of the time, the system evolves deterministically under theguiding equation with a fixed number of particles. But under a stochastic process, particles may be created andannihilated. The distribution of creation events is dictated by the wavefunction. The wavefunction itself is evolvingat all times over the full multi-particle configuration space.

Bohm interpretation 83

Exploiting nonlocalityValentini[6] has extended the de Broglie–Bohm theory to include signal nonlocality that would allow entanglementto be used as a stand-alone communication channel without a secondary classical "key" signal to "unlock" themessage encoded in the entanglement. This violates orthodox quantum theory but it has the virtue that it makes theparallel universes of the chaotic inflation theory observable in principle.Unlike de Broglie–Bohm theory, Valentini's theory has the wavefunction evolution also depend on the onotologicalvariables. This introduces an instability, a feedback loop that pushes the hidden variables out of "sub-quantal heatdeath". The resulting theory becomes nonlinear and non-unitary.

RelativityWhile Bell's theorem does suggest a certain amount of tension between quantum theory and relativity, it is possibleto formulate models demonstrating the potential for relativistic theories. There has been work in developing nonlocalversions of de Broglie–Bohm theory. See Bohm and Hiley: The Undivided Universe, and [7], [8], and referencestherein. A quantum field theory treatment is given in [9] and [10]. Another approach is given in the work of Dürr etal[11] in which they use Bohm-Dirac models and a Lorentz-invariant foliation of space-time.

ResultsBelow are some highlights of the results that arise out of an analysis of de Broglie–Bohm theory. Experimentalresults agree with all of the standard predictions of quantum mechanics in so far as the latter has predictions.However, while standard quantum mechanics is limited to discussing experiments with human observers, deBroglie–Bohm theory is a theory which governs the dynamics of a system without the intervention of outsideobservers (p. 117 in Bell[12] ).

The basis for agreement with standard quantum mechanics is that the particles are distributed according to .This is a statement of observer ignorance, but it can be proven[1] that for a universe governed by this theory, this willtypically be the case. There is apparent collapse of the wave function governing subsystems of the universe, but thereis no collapse of the universal wavefunction.

Measuring spin and polarizationAccording to ordinary quantum theory, it is not possible to measure the spin or polarization of a particle directly;instead, the component in one direction is measured; the outcome from a single particle may be 1, meaning that theparticle is aligned with the measuring apparatus, or -1, meaning that it is aligned the opposite way. For an ensembleof particles, if we expect the particles to be aligned, the results are all 1. If we expect them to be aligned oppositely,the results are all -1. For other alignments, we expect some results to be 1 and some to be -1 with a probability thatdepends on the expected alignment. For a full explanation of this, see the Stern-Gerlach Experiment.In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the results of a spin experiment cannot be analyzed without some knowledge of theexperimental setup. It is possible[13] to modify the setup so that the trajectory of the particle is unaffected, but thatthe particle with one setup registers as spin up while in the other setup it registers as spin down. Thus, for the deBroglie–Bohm theory, the particle's spin is not an intrinsic property of the particle -- instead spin is, so to speak, inthe wave function of the particle in relation to the particular device being used to measure the spin. This is anillustration of what is sometimes referred to as contextuality, and is related to naive realism about operators.[14]

Bohm interpretation 84

Measurements, the quantum formalism, and observer independenceDe Broglie–Bohm theory gives the same results as quantum mechanics. It treats the wavefunction as a fundamentalobject in the theory as the wavefunction describes how the particles move. This means that no experiment candistinguish between the two theories. This section outlines the ideas as to how the standard quantum formalismarises out of quantum mechanics. References include Bohm's original 1952 paper and Dürr et al.[1]

Collapse of the wavefunction

De Broglie–Bohm theory is a theory that applies primarily to the whole universe. That is, there is a singlewavefunction governing the motion of all of the particles in the universe according to the guiding equation.Theoretically, the motion of one particle depends on the positions of all of the other particles in the universe. In somesituations, such as in experimental systems, we can represent the system itself in terms of a de Broglie–Bohm theoryin which the wavefunction of the system is obtained by conditioning on the environment of the system. Thus, thesystem can be analyzed with Schrödinger's equation and the guiding equation, with an initial distribution forthe particles in the system (see the section on [[#The conditional wave function of a subsystem|the conditional wavefunction of a subsystem]] for details).It requires a special setup for the conditional wavefunction of a system to obey a quantum evolution. When a systeminteracts with its environment, such as through a measurement, then the conditional wavefunction of the systemevolves in a different way. The evolution of the universal wavefunction can become such that the wavefunction ofthe system appears to be in a superposition of distinct states. But if the environment has recorded the results of theexperiment, then using the actual Bohmian configuration of the environment to condition on, the conditionalwavefunction collapses to just one alternative, the one corresponding with the measurement results.Collapse of the universal wavefunction never occurs in de Broglie–Bohm theory. Its entire evolution is governed bySchrödinger's equation and the particles' evolutions are governed by the guiding equation. Collapse only occurs in aphenomenological way for systems that seem to follow their own Schrödinger's equation. As this is an effectivedescription of the system, it is a matter of choice as to what to define the experimental system to include and this willaffect when "collapse" occurs.

Operators as observables

In the standard quantum formalism, measuring observables is generally thought of as measuring operators on theHilbert space. For example, measuring position is considered to be a measurement of the position operator. Thisrelationship between physical measurements and Hilbert space operators is, for standard quantum mechanics, anadditional axiom of the theory. The de Broglie–Bohm theory, by contrast, requires no such measurement axioms(and measurement as such is not a dynamically distinct or special sub-category of physical processes in the theory).In particular, the usual operators-as-observables formalism is, for de Broglie–Bohm theory, a theorem. [15] A majorpoint of the analysis is that many of the measurements of the observables do not correspond to properties of theparticles; they are (as in the case of spin discussed above) measurements of the wavefunction.In the history of de Broglie–Bohm theory, the proponents have often had to deal with claims that this theory isimpossible. Such arguments are generally based on inappropriate analysis of operators as observables. If onebelieves that spin measurements are indeed measuring the spin of a particle that existed prior to the measurement,then one does reach contradictions. De Broglie–Bohm theory deals with this by noting that spin is not a feature ofthe particle, but rather that of the wavefunction. As such, it only has a definite outcome once the experimentalapparatus is chosen. Once that is taken into account, the impossibility theorems become irrelevant.There have also been claims that experiments reject the Bohm trajectories [16] in favor of the standard QM lines.But as shown in [17] and [18], such experiments cited above only disprove a misinterpretation of the deBroglie–Bohm theory, not the theory itself.

Bohm interpretation 85

There are also objections to this theory based on what it says about particular situations usually involving eigenstatesof an operator. For example, the ground state of hydrogen is a real wavefunction. According to the guiding equation,this means that the electron is at rest when in this state. Nevertheless, it is distributed according to and nocontradiction to experimental results is possible to detect.Operators as observables leads many to believe that many operators are equivalent. De Broglie–Bohm theory, fromthis perspective, chooses the position observable as a favored observable rather than, say, the momentum observable.Again, the link to the position observable is a consequence of the dynamics. The motivation for de Broglie–Bohmtheory is to describe a system of particles. This implies that the goal of the theory is to describe the positions of thoseparticles at all times. Other observables do not have this compelling ontological status. Having definite positionsexplains having definite results such as flashes on a detector screen. Other observables would not lead to thatconclusion, but there need not be any problem in defining a mathematical theory for other observables; see Hyman etal[19] for an exploration of the fact that a probability density and probability current can be defined for any set ofcommuting operators.

Hidden variables

De Broglie–Bohm theory is often referred to as a "hidden variable" theory. The alleged applicability of the term"hidden variable" comes from the fact that the particles postulated by Bohmian mechanics do not influence theevolution of the wavefunction. The argument is that, because adding particles does not have an effect on thewavefunction's evolution, such particles must not have effects at all and are, thus, unobservable, since they cannothave an effect on observers. There is no analogue of Newton's third law in this theory. The idea is supposed to bethat, since particles cannot influence the wavefunction, and it is the wavefunction that determines measurementpredictions through the Born rule, the particles are superfluous and unobservable.Such an argument, however, arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation between the ontologyposited by the de Broglie–Bohm theory and the world of ordinary observation. In particular, the particles postulatedby the de Broglie–Bohm theory are anything but "hidden" variables: they are what the cats and trees and tables andplanets and pointers we see are made of! It is the wavefunction itself which is "hidden" in the sense of beinginvisible and not-directly-observable.Thus, for example, when the wavefunction of some measuring apparatus is such that its pointer is superposedbetween pointing to the left and pointing to the right, what accounts for the fact that scientists, when they look at theapparatus, see the pointer pointing to the left (say) is the fact that the de Broglie–Bohmian particles that make up thepointer are actually pointed towards the left. While the exact details of how humans process such information andwhat it is based on is beyond the scope of the de Broglie–Bohm theory, the basic idea of any particle ontology is thatif the particles in the theory appear where they seem to be from human observations, then it is considered asuccessful prediction.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principleThe Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that when two complementary measurements are made, there is a limit tothe product of their accuracy. As an example, if one measures the position with an accuracy of , and themomentum with an accuracy of , then If we make further measurements in order to get moreinformation, we disturb the system and change the trajectory into a new one depending on the measurement setup;therefore, the measurement results are still subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty relation.In de Broglie–Bohm theory, there is always a matter of fact about the position and momentum of a particle. Each particle has a well defined trajectory. Observers have limited knowledge as to what this trajectory is (and thus of the position and momentum). It is the lack knowledge of the particle's trajectory that accounts for the uncertainty relation. What one can know about a particle at any given time is described by the wavefunction. Since the uncertainty relation can be derived from the wavefunction in other interpretations of quantum mechanics, it can be

Bohm interpretation 86

likewise derived (in the epistemic sense mentioned above), on the de Broglie–Bohm theory.To put the statement differently, the particles' positions are only known statistically. As in classical mechanics,successive observations of the particles' positions refine the experimenter's knowledge of the particles' initialconditions. Thus, with succeeding observations, the initial conditions become more and more restricted. Thisformalism is consistent with the normal use of the Schrödinger equation.For the derivation of the uncertainty relation, see Heisenberg uncertainty principle, noting that it describes it from theviewpoint of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Quantum entanglement, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Bell's theorem, and nonlocalityDe Broglie–Bohm theory highlighted the issue of nonlocality: it inspired John Stewart Bell to prove his now-famoustheorem,[20] which in turn led to the Bell test experiments.In the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,[21] the authors point out that quantum mechanics allows the creation ofpairs of particles in an entangled quantum state. They describe a thought-experiment one could perform on such apair, the results of which they interpreted as indicating that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory.Decades later John Bell proved Bell's theorem (see p. 14 in Bell[12] ), in which he showed that, if they are to agreewith the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics, all such "hidden-variable" completions of quantum mechanicsmust either be nonlocal (as the Bohm interpretation is) or give up the assumption that experiments produce uniqueresults (see counterfactual definiteness and many-worlds interpretation). In particular, Bell proved that any localtheory with unique results must make empirical predictions satisfying a statistical constraint called "Bell'sinequality".Alain Aspect performed a series of Bell test experiments that test Bell's inequality using an EPR-type setup. Aspect'sresults show experimentally that Bell's inequality is in fact violated -- meaning that the relevant quantum mechanicalpredictions are correct. In these Bell test experiments, entangled pairs of particles are created; the particles areseparated, traveling to remote measuring apparatus. The orientation of the measuring apparatus can be changed whilethe particles are in flight, demonstrating the apparent non-locality of the effect.The de Broglie–Bohm theory makes the same (empirically correct) predictions for the Bell test experiments asordinary quantum mechanics. It is able to do this because it is manifestly nonlocal. It is often criticized or rejectedbased on this; Bell's attitude was: "It is a merit of the de Broglie–Bohm version to bring this [nonlocality] out soexplicitly that it cannot be ignored." [22]

The de Broglie–Bohm theory describes the physics in the Bell test experiments as follows: to understand theevolution of the particles, we need to set up a wave equation for both particles; the orientation of the apparatusaffects the wavefunction. The particles in the experiment follow the guidance of the wavefunction. It is thewavefunction that carries the faster-than-light effect of changing the orientation of the apparatus. An analysis ofexactly what kind of nonlocality is present and how it is compatible with relativity can be found in Maudlin.[23] Notethat in Bell's work, and in more detail in Maudlin's work, it is shown that the nonlocality does not allow for signalingat speeds faster than light.

Bohm interpretation 87

Classical limitBohm's formulation of de Broglie–Bohm theory in terms of a classical-looking version has the merits that theemergence of classical behavior seems to follow immediately for any situation in which the quantum potential isnegligible, as noted by Bohm in 1952. Modern methods of decoherence are relevant to an analysis of this limit. SeeAllori et al[24] for steps towards a rigorous analysis.

Quantum trajectory methodWork by Robert Wyatt in the early 2000s attempted to use the Bohm "particles" as an adaptive mesh that follows theactual trajectory of a quantum state in time and space. In the "quantum trajectory" method, one samples the quantumwavefunction with a mesh of quadrature points. One then evolves the quadrature points in time according to theBohm equations of motion. At each time-step, one then re-synthesizes the wavefunction from the points, recomputesthe quantum forces, and continues the calculation. (Quick-time movies of this for H+H2 reactive scattering can befound on the Wyatt group [25] web-site at UT Austin.) This approach has been adapted, extended, and used by anumber of researchers in the Chemical Physics community as a way to compute semi-classical and quasi-classicalmolecular dynamics. A recent (2007) issue of the Journal of Physical Chemistry A [26] was dedicated to Prof. Wyattand his work on "Computational Bohmian Dynamics".Eric Bittner's group [27] at the University of Houston has advanced a statistical variant of this approach that usesBayesian sampling technique to sample the quantum density and compute the quantum potential on a structurelessmesh of points. This technique was recently used to estimate quantum effects in the heat-capacity of small clustersNen for n~100.There remain difficulties using the Bohmian approach, mostly associated with the formation of singularities in thequantum potential due to nodes in the quantum wavefunction. In general, nodes forming due to interference effectslead to the case where This results in an infinite force on the sample particles forcing them to move

away from the node and often crossing the path of other sample points (which violates single-valuedness). Variousschemes have been developed to overcome this; however, no general solution has yet emerged.These methods, as does Bohm's Hamilton-Jacobi formulation, do not apply to situations in which the full dynamicsof spin need to be taken into account.

Occam's razor criticismBoth Hugh Everett III and Bohm treated the wavefunction as a physically real field. Everett's many-worldsinterpretation is an attempt to demonstrate that the wavefunction alone is sufficient to account for all ourobservations. When we see the particle detectors flash or hear the click of a Geiger counter then Everett's theoryinterprets this as our wavefunction responding to changes in the detector's wavefunction, which is responding in turnto the passage of another wavefunction (which we think of as a "particle", but is actually just anotherwave-packet).[28] No particle (in the Bohm sense of having a defined position and velocity) exists, according to thattheory. For this reason Everett sometimes referred to his approach as the "pure wave theory". Talking of Bohm's1952 approach, Everett says:

“Our main criticism of this view is on the grounds of simplicity - if one desires to hold the view that is a real field then the associatedparticle is superfluous since, as we have endeavored to illustrate, the pure wave theory is itself satisfactory.[29] ”

In the Everettian view, then, the Bohm particles are superfluous entities, similar to, and equally as unnecessary as,for example, the luminiferous ether was found to be unnecessary in special relativity. This argument of Everett's issometimes called the "redundancy argument", since the superfluous particles are redundant in the sense of Occam'srazor.[30] .

Bohm interpretation 88

Many authors have expressed critical views of the de Broglie-Bohm theory, by comparing it to Everett's manyworlds approach. Many (but not all) proponents of the de Broglie-Bohm theory (such as Bohm and Bell) interpret theuniversal wave function as physically real. According to some authors, if the (never collapsing) wave function istaken to be physically real, then it is natural to interpret the theory as having the same many worlds as Everett'stheory. In the Everettian view the role of the Bohm particle is to act as a "pointer", tagging, or selecting, just onebranch of the universal wavefunction (the assumption that this branch indicates which wave packet determines theobserved result of a given experiment is called the "result assumption"[28] ); the other branches are designated"empty" and implicitly assumed by Bohm to be devoid of conscious observers.[28] H. Dieter Zeh comments on these"empty" branches:

“It is usually overlooked that Bohm’s theory contains the same “many worlds” of dynamically separate branches as the Everett interpretation(now regarded as “empty” wave components), since it is based on precisely the same . . . global wave function . . .[31] ”

David Deutsch has expressed the same point more "acerbically"[28] :

“pilot-wave theories are parallel-universe theories in a state of chronic denial.[32]”According to Brown & Wallace[28] the de Broglie-Bohm particles play no role in the solution of the measurementproblem. These authors claim[28] that the "result assumption" (see above) is inconsistent with the view that there isno measurement problem in the predictable outcome (i.e. single-outcome) case. These authors also claim[28] that astandard tacit assumption of the de Broglie-Bohm theory (that an observer becomes aware of configurations ofparticles of ordinary objects by means of correlations between such configurations and the configuration of theparticles in the observer's brain) is unreasonable. This conclusion has been challenged by pilot wave advocates, witha number of suggested resolutions; either deny that the wavefunction is as objectively real as the particles[30] ordispute whether the Everettarian prescription is complete (e.g. can probabilities be derived from thewavefunction?)[30]

DerivationsDe Broglie–Bohm theory has been derived many times and in many ways. Below are five derivations all of whichare very different and lead to different ways of understanding and extending this theory.• Schrödinger's equation can be derived by using Einstein's light quanta hypothesis: and de Broglie's

hypothesis: .

The guiding equation can be derived in a similar fashion. We assume a plane wave: .Notice that . Assuming that for the particle's actual velocity, we have that

. Thus, we have the guiding equation.

Notice that this derivation does not use Schrödinger's equation.• Preserving the density under the time evolution is another method of derivation. This is the method that Bell cites.

It is this method which generalizes to many possible alternative theories. The starting point is the continuityequation for the density . This equation describes a probability flow along a

current. We take the velocity field associated with this current as the velocity field whose integral curves yield themotion of the particle.

• A method applicable for particles without spin is to do a polar decomposition of the wavefunction and transformSchrödinger's equation into two coupled equations: the continuity equation from above and the Hamilton–Jacobiequation. This is the method used by Bohm in 1952. The decomposition and equations are as follows:

Bohm interpretation 89

Decomposition: Note corresponds to the probability density.

Continuity Equation:

Hamilton–Jacobi Equation:

The Hamilton–Jacobi equation is the equation derived from a Newtonian system with potential

and velocity field The potential is the classical potential that appears in

Schrödinger's equation and the other term involving is the quantum potential, terminology introduced byBohm.This leads to viewing the quantum theory as particles moving under the classical force modified by a quantumforce. However, unlike standard Newtonian mechanics, the initial velocity field is already specified by

which is a symptom of this being a first-order theory, not a second-order theory.• A fourth derivation was given by Dürr et al.[1] In their derivation, they derive the velocity field by demanding the

appropriate transformation properties given by the various symmetries that Schrödinger's equation satisfies, oncethe wavefunction is suitably transformed. The guiding equation is what emerges from that analysis.

• A fifth derivation, given by Dürr et al[4] is appropriate for generalization to quantum field theory and the Diracequation. The idea is that a velocity field can also be understood as a first order differential operator acting onfunctions. Thus, if we know how it acts on functions, we know what it is. Then given the Hamiltonian operator

, the equation to satisfy for all functions (with associated multiplication operator ) is

where is the local Hermitian inner product on the value space

of the wavefunction.This formulation allows for stochastic theories such as the creation and annihilation of particles.

HistoryDe Broglie–Bohm theory has a history of different formulations and names. In this section, each stage is given aname and a main reference.

Pilot-wave theoryThis was the theory which de Broglie presented at the 1927 Solvay Conference.[33] At the conference, WolfgangPauli pointed out that it did not deal properly with the case of inelastic scattering. De Broglie was persuaded by thisargument, and abandoned this theory. Later, in 1932, John von Neumann published a paper,[34] claiming to provethat all hidden-variable theories are impossible. This clearly applied to de Broglie's theories.This stage applies to many spin-less particles, and is deterministic, but lacks an adequate theory of measurement. Ananalysis of de Broglie's presentation is given in Bacciagaluppi et al.[35] [36]

Around this time Erwin Madelung[37] also developed a hydrodynamic version of Schrödinger's equation which is thebasis for the density current derivation of de Broglie–Bohm theory. The Madelung equations differ, however, fromthe de Broglie–Bohm theory[38] .

Bohm interpretation 90

De Broglie–Bohm theoryThis was described by Bohm's original papers 'A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of"Hidden Variables" I and II' [Bohm 1952]. It extended the original Pilot Wave Theory to incorporate a consistenttheory of measurement, and to address a criticism of Pauli that de Broglie did not properly respond to; it is taken tobe deterministic (though Bohm hinted in the original papers that there should be disturbances to this, in the wayBrownian motion disturbs Newtonian mechanics). This stage is known as the de Broglie–Bohm Theory in Bell'swork [Bell 1987] and is the basis for 'The Quantum Theory of Motion' [Holland 1993].This stage applies to multiple particles, and is deterministic.The de Broglie–Bohm theory is an example of a hidden variables theory. Bohm originally hoped that hiddenvariables could provide a local, causal, objective description that would resolve or eliminate many of the paradoxesof quantum mechanics, such as Schrödinger's cat, the measurement problem and the collapse of the wavefunction.However, Bell's theorem complicates this hope, as it demonstrates that there can be no local hidden variable theorythat is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. The Bohmian interpretation is causal but not local.Bohm became dissatisfied with the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, pointing out that, although itrequires one to give up "the possibility of even conceiving what might determine the behaviour of an individualsystem at a quantum level", it does not prove that this requirement is necessary. Indeed, it was his understanding,given 44to him by Einstein, of the flawed nature of von Neumann's proof that inspired his papers.Bohm's paper was largely ignored by other physicists; it was not supported by Albert Einstein (who was alsodissatisfied with the prevailing orthodoxy and had discussed Bohm's ideas with him before publication). Bohmeventually abandoned it.The cause was taken up by John Bell. In "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" [Bell 1987], severalof the papers refer to hidden variables theories (which include Bohm's). Bell showed that Pauli's and von Neumann'sobjections amounted to showing that hidden variables theories are nonlocal, and that nonlocality is a feature of allquantum mechanical systems.

Bohmian mechanicsThis term is used to describe the same theory, but with an emphasis on the notion of current flow. In particular, it isoften used to include most of the further extensions past the spin-less version of Bohm. While de Broglie–Bohmtheory has Lagrangians and Hamilton-Jacobi equations as a primary focus and backdrop, with the icon of thequantum potential, Bohmian mechanics considers the continuity equation as primary and has the guiding equation asits icon. They are mathematically equivalent in so far as the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation applies, i.e., spin-lessparticles. The papers of Dürr et al popularized the term.All of non-relativistic quantum mechanics can be fully accounted for in this theory.

Causal interpretation and ontological interpretationBohm developed his original ideas, calling them the Causal Interpretation. Later he felt that causal sounded toomuch like deterministic and preferred to call his theory the Ontological Interpretation. The main reference is 'TheUndivided Universe' [Bohm, Hiley 1993].This stage covers work by Bohm and in collaboration with Vigier and Hiley. Bohm is clear that this theory isnon-deterministic (the work with Hiley includes a stochastic theory). As such, this theory is not, strictly speaking, aformulation of the de Broglie–Bohm theory. However, it deserves mention here because the term "BohmInterpretation" is ambiguous between this theory and the de Broglie–Bohm theory.

Bohm interpretation 91

See also• David Bohm• Interpretation of quantum mechanics• Madelung equations• Local hidden variable theory• Quantum mechanics• Pilot wave

References• Albert, David Z. (May 1994). "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics". Scientific American 270: 58–67.• Barbosa, G. D.; N. Pinto-Neto (2004). "A Bohmian Interpretation for Noncommutative Scalar Field Theory and

Quantum Mechanics". Physical Review D 69: 065014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.065014 [39].arΧiv:hep-th/0304105.

• Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables" I".Physical Review 85: 166–179. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166 [40].

• Bohm, David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables", II".Physical Review 85: 180–193. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.180 [41].

• Bohm, David (1990). "A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter [42]". Philosophical Psychology 3 (2):271–286. doi:10.1080/09515089008573004 [43].

• Bohm, David; B.J. Hiley (1993). The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory.London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12185-X.

• Durr, Detlef; Sheldon Goldstein, Roderich Tumulka and Nino Zangh (December 2004). "Bohmian Mechanics[44]" (PDF). Physical review letters 93 (9): 090402. ISSN 0031-9007 [45]. PMID 15447078 [46].

• Goldstein, Sheldon (2001). "Bohmian Mechanics [47]". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.• Hall, Michael J.W. (2004). "Incompleteness of trajectory-based interpretations of quantum mechanics". Journal of

Physics a Mathematical and General 37: 9549. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/37/40/015 [48]. arΧiv:quant-ph/0406054.(Demonstrates incompleteness of the Bohm interpretation in the face of fractal, differentialble-nowherewavefunctions.)

• Holland, Peter R. (1993). The Quantum Theory of Motion : An Account of the de Broglie–Bohm CausalInterpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-48543-6.

• Nikolic, H. (2004). "Relativistic quantum mechanics and the Bohmian interpretation". Foundations of PhysicsLetters 18: 549. doi:10.1007/s10702-005-1128-1 [49]. arΧiv:quant-ph/0406173.

• Passon, Oliver (2004). Why isn't every physicist a Bohmian?. arΧiv:quant-ph/0412119.• Sanz, A. S.; F. Borondo (2003). "A Bohmian view on quantum decoherence". The European Physical Journal D

44: 319. doi:10.1140/epjd/e2007-00191-8 [50]. arΧiv:quant-ph/0310096.• Sanz, A.S. (2005). "A Bohmian approach to quantum fractals". J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38: 319.

doi:10.1088/0305-4470/38/26/013 [51]. (Describes a Bohmian resolution to the dilemma posed bynon-differentiable wavefunctions.)

• Silverman, Mark P. (1993). And Yet It Moves: Strange Systems and Subtle Questions in Physics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-44631-7.

• Streater, Ray F. (2003). "Bohmian mechanics is a "lost cause" [52]". Retrieved 2006-06-25.• Valentini, Antony; Hans Westman (2004). Dynamical Origin of Quantum Probabilities. arΧiv:quant-ph/0403034.• Bohmian mechanics on arxiv.org [53]

Bohm interpretation 92

External links• "Bohmian Mechanics" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [54]

• "Pilot waves, Bohmian metaphysics, and the foundations of quantum mechanics" [55], lecture course on Bohminterpretation by Mike Towler, Cambridge University.

References[1] Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N., "Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/

0308039), Journal of Statistical Physics 67: 843–907, 1992.[2] Quantum Equilibrium and the Origin of Absolute Uncertainty, D. Dürr, S. Goldstein and N. Zanghì, Journal of Statistical Physics 67, 843-907

(1992), http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0308039.[3] Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Taylor, J., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N., J. "Quantum Mechanics in Multiply-Connected Spaces" (http:/ / arxiv. org/

abs/ quant-ph/ 0506173), Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 2997–3031 (2007)[4] Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N., 2004, "Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/

quant-ph/ 0303156), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93: 090402:1–4.[5] Dürr, D., Tumulka, R., and Zanghì, N., J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, R1–R43 (2005), quant-ph/0407116[6] Valentini, A., 1991, "Signal-Locality, Uncertainty and the Subquantum H-Theorem. II," Physics Letters A 158: 1–8.[7] http:/ / xxx. lanl. gov/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0208185[8] http:/ / xxx. lanl. gov/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0302152[9] http:/ / xxx. lanl. gov/ abs/ 0811. 1905[10] http:/ / xxx. lanl. gov/ abs/ 0904. 2287[11] Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., Münch-Berndl, K., and Zanghì, N., 1999, "Hypersurface Bohm-Dirac Models" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/

9801070), Phys. Rev. A 60: 2729–2736.[12] Bell, John S, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press 1987.[13] Albert, D. Z., 1992, Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press[14] Daumer, M., Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N., 1997, "Naive Realism About Operators" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 9601013),

Erkenntnis 45: 379–397.[15] Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N., "Quantum Equilibrium and the Role of Operators as Observables in Quantum Theory" (http:/ / arxiv.

org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0308038) Journal of Statistical Physics 116, 959–1055 (2004)[16] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0206196[17] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0108038[18] http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/ 0305131[19] Hyman, Ross et al Bohmian mechanics with discrete operators (http:/ / www. iop. org/ EJ/ abstract/ 0305-4470/ 37/ 44/ L02), J. Phys. A:

Math. Gen. 37 L547–L558, 2004[20] J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox (http:/ / www. drchinese. com/ David/ Bell_Compact. pdf), Physics 1, 195 (1964)[21] Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).[22] Bell, page 115[23] Maudlin, T., 1994, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.[24] Allori, V., Dürr, D., Goldstein, S., and Zanghì, N., 2002, "Seven Steps Towards the Classical World" (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ quant-ph/

0112005), Journal of Optics B 4: 482–488.[25] http:/ / research. cm. utexas. edu/ rwyatt/ movies/ qtm/ index. html[26] http:/ / pubs. acs. org/ toc/ jpcafh/ 111/ 41[27] http:/ / k2. chem. uh. edu[28] Harvey R Brown and David Wallace, Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie-Bohm loses out to Everett, Foundations of Physics 35

(2005), pp. 517-540. (http:/ / philsci-archive. pitt. edu/ archive/ 00001659/ 01/ Cushing. pdf) Abstract: "The quantum theory of de Broglie andBohm solves the measurement problem, but the hypothetical corpuscles play no role in the argument. The solution finds a more natural homein the Everett interpretation."

[29] See section VI of Everett's thesis: The Theory of the Universal Wave Function, pp 3-140 of Bryce Seligman DeWitt, R. Neill Graham, eds,The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press (1973), ISBN0-691-08131-X

[30] Craig Callender, "The Redundancy Argument Against Bohmian Mechanics". (http:/ / philosophy. ucsd. edu/ faculty/ ccallender/ TheRedundancy Argument Against Bohmian Mechanics. doc. )

[31] Daniel Dennett (2000). With a little help from my friends. In D. Ross, A. Brook, and D. Thompson (Eds.), Dennett’s Philosophy: acomprehensive assessment. MIT Press/Bradford, ISBN 026268117X.

[32] David Deutsch, Comment on Lockwood. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47, 222228, 1996[33] Solvay Conference, 1928, Electrons et Photons: Rapports et Descussions du Cinquieme Conseil de Physique tenu a Bruxelles du 24 au 29

October 1927 sous les auspices de l'Institut International Physique Solvay

Bohm interpretation 93

[34] von Neumann J. 1932 Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik[35] Bacciagaluppi, G., and Valentini, A., Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference[36] See the brief summary by Towler, M., "Pilot wave theory, Bohmian metaphysics, and the foundations of quantum mecahnics" (http:/ / www.

tcm. phy. cam. ac. uk/ ~mdt26/ PWT/ lectures/ bohm7. pdf)[37] Madelung, E., “ Quantentheorie in hydrodynamischer Form,” Zeit. F. Phys. 40 (1927), 322–326[38] Tsekov, R. (2009) Bohmian Mechanics versus Madelung Quantum Hydrodynamics (http:/ / arxiv. org/ abs/ 0904. 0723)[39] http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1103%2FPhysRevD. 69. 065014[40] http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1103%2FPhysRev. 85. 166[41] http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1103%2FPhysRev. 85. 180[42] http:/ / members. aol. com/ Mszlazak/ BOHM. html[43] http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080%2F09515089008573004[44] http:/ / www. math. rutgers. edu/ ~oldstein/ papers/ bohmech. pdf[45] http:/ / worldcat. org/ issn/ 0031-9007[46] http:/ / www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 15447078[47] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ qm-bohm/[48] http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1088%2F0305-4470%2F37%2F40%2F015[49] http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1007%2Fs10702-005-1128-1[50] http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2007-00191-8[51] http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1088%2F0305-4470%2F38%2F26%2F013[52] http:/ / www. mth. kcl. ac. uk/ ~streater/ lostcauses. html#XI[53] http:/ / xstructure. inr. ac. ru/ x-bin/ theme3. py?level=1& index1=-139823[54] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ qm-bohm[55] http:/ / www. tcm. phy. cam. ac. uk/ ~mdt26/ pilot_waves. html

Self- awareSelf-awareness is literally the awareness of the self. It is distinct from self-consciousness.[1]

The basis of personal identity

A philosophical viewI think, therefore I exist, as a thing that thinks.

"...And as I observed that this truth 'I think, therefore I am' (Cogito ergo sum) was so certain and of such evidence ...Iconcluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the Philosophy I was in search.""...In the statement 'I think, therefore I am' ...I see very clearly that to think it is necessary to be, I concluded that Imight take, as a general rule, the principle, that all the things which we very clearly and distinctly conceive aretrue..."[2] [3]

While reading Descartes, Locke began to relish the great ideas of philosophy and the scientific method. On oneoccasion, while in a meeting with friends, the question of the "limits of human understanding" arose. He spentalmost twenty years of his life on the subject until the publication of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, agreat chapter in the History of Philosophy.[4]

John Locke's chapter XXVII "On Identity and Diversity" in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) hasbeen said to be one of the first modern conceptualizations of consciousness as the repeated self-identification ofoneself, through which moral responsibility could be attributed to the subject - and therefore punishment andguiltiness justified, as critics such as Nietzsche would point out, affirming "...the psychology of conscience is not 'thevoice of God in man'; it is the instinct of cruelty...expressed, for the first time, as one of the oldest and mostindispensable elements in the foundation of culture."[5] [6] [7] John Locke does not use the terms self-awareness orself-consciousness though.[8] Nietzsche himself, in his work On the Genealogy of Morals,[9] based on Philology,breaks away from the traditional views of Judaeo Christian Ethics but his alienation could be taken as contributing tohis eventual insanity[10] though some scholars believe he may have been suffering from syphilis.

Self-aware 94

According to Locke, personal identity (the self) "depends on consciousness, not on substance" nor on the soul. Weare the same person to the extent that we are conscious of our past and future thoughts and actions in the same wayas we are conscious of our present thoughts and actions. If consciousness is this "thought" which doubles allthoughts, then personal identity is only founded on the repeated act of consciousness: "This may show us whereinpersonal identity consists: not in the identity of substance, but... in the identity of consciousness". For example, onemay claim to be a reincarnation of Plato, therefore having the same soul. However, one would be the same person asPlato only if one had the same consciousness of Plato's thoughts and actions that he himself did. Therefore,self-identity is not based on the soul. One soul may have various personalities. Self-identity is not founded either onthe body or the substance, argues Locke, as the substance may change while the person remains the same: "animalidentity is preserved in identity of life, and not of substance", as the body of the animal grows and changes during itslife. Take for example a prince's soul which enters the body of a cobbler: to all exterior eyes, the cobbler wouldremain a cobbler. But to the prince himself, the cobbler would be himself, as he would be conscious of the prince'sthoughts and acts, and not of the cobbler's life. A prince's consciousness in a cobbler body: thus the cobbler is, infact, a prince. But this interesting border-case leads to this problematic thought that since personal identity is basedon consciousness, and that only oneself can be aware of his consciousness, exterior human judges may never know ifthey really are judging - and punishing - the same person, or simply the same body. In other words, Locke arguesthat you may be judged only for the acts of your body, as this is what is apparent to all but God; however, you are intruth only responsible for the acts for which you are conscious. This forms the basis of the insanity defense: one can'tbe held accountable for acts in which one was unconsciously irrational, mentally ill [11] - and therefore leads tointeresting philosophical questions:

"personal identity consists [not in the identity of substance] but in the identity of consciousness, wherein ifSocrates and the present mayor of Queenborough agree, they are the same person: if the same Socrates wakingand sleeping do not partake of the same consciousness, Socrates waking and sleeping is not the same person.And to punish Socrates waking for what sleeping Socrates thought, and waking Socrates was never consciousof, would be no more right, than to punish one twin for what his brother-twin did, whereof he knew nothing,because their outsides were so like, that they could not be distinguished; for such twins have been seen."[12]

Or again:"PERSON, as I take it, is the name for this self. Wherever a man finds what he calls himself, there, I think,another may say is the same person. It is a forensic term, appropriating actions and their merit; and so belongonly to intelligent agents, capable of a law, and happiness, and misery. This personality extends itself beyondpresent existence to what is past, only by consciousness, --whereby it becomes concerned and accountable;owns and imputes to itself past actions, just upon the same ground and for the same reason as it does thepresent. All which is founded in a concern for happiness, the unavoidable concomitant of consciousness; thatwhich is conscious of pleasure and pain, desiring that that self that is conscious should be happy. Andtherefore whatever past actions it cannot reconcile or APPROPRIATE to that present self by consciousness, itcan be no more concerned in it than if they had never been done: and to receive pleasure or pain, i.e. reward orpunishment, on the account of any such action, is all one as to be made happy or miserable in its first being,without any demerit at all. For, supposing a MAN punished now for what he had done in another life, whereofhe could be made to have no consciousness at all, what difference is there between that punishment and beingCREATED miserable? And therefore, conformable to this, the apostle tells us, that, at the great day, whenevery one shall 'receive according to his doings, the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open.' The sentence shallbe justified by the consciousness all person shall have, that THEY THEMSELVES, in what bodies soever theyappear, or what substances soever that consciousness adheres to, are the SAME that committed those actions,and deserve that punishment for them." [[#endnote_Lockea|[4]]]

Henceforth, Locke's conception of personal identity founds it not on the substance or the body, but in the "same continued consciousness", which is also distinct from the soul since the soul may have no consciousness of itself (as

Self-aware 95

in reincarnation). He creates a third term between the soul and the body - and Locke's thought may certainly bemeditated by those who, following a scientist ideology, would identify too quickly the brain to consciousness. Forthe brain, as the body and as any substance, may change, while consciousness remains the same. Therefore personalidentity is not in the brain, but in consciousness. However, Locke's theory also reveals his debt to theology and toApocalyptic "great day", which by advance excuse any failings of human justice and therefore humanity's miserablestate.

A modern scientific viewSelf-Awareness Theory

Self-Awareness Theory states that when we focus our attention on ourselves, we evaluate and compare our currentbehavior to our internal standards and values. We become self-conscious as objective evaluators of ourselves.Various emotional states are intensified by self-awareness, and people sometimes try to reduce or escape it throughthings like television, video games, drugs, etc. However, some people may seek to increase their self awarenessthrough these outlets. People are more likely to align their behavior with their standards when made self-aware.People will be negatively affected if they don’t live up to their personal standards. Various environmental cues andsituations induce awareness of the self, such as mirrors, an audience, or being videotaped or recorded. These cuesalso increase accuracy of personal memory.[13] . In Demetriou´s theory, one of the neo-Piagetian theories ofcognitive development, self-awareness develops systematically from birth through the life span and it is a majorfactor for the development of general inferential processes. [14]

In theaterTheater also concerns itself with other awareness besides self-awareness. There is a possible correlation between theexperience of the theater audience and individual self-awareness. As actors and audiences must not 'break' the fourthwall in order to maintain context, so individuals must not be aware of the artificial, or the constructed perception ofhis or her reality. This suggests that self-awareness is an artificial continuum just as theater is. Theatrical efforts suchas Six Characters in Search of an Author or say, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, construct yet another layer of thefourth wall, but they do not destroy the primary illusion. Refer to Erving Goffman's Frame Analysis: An Essay on theOrganization of Experience.

In animalsHumans are not the only creatures who are self-aware. Thus far, there is evidence that bottlenose dolphins, someapes, [15] and elephants have the capacity to be self-aware.[16] Recent studies from the Goethe University Frankfurtshow that magpies may also possess self-awareness. [17] Common speculation suggests that some other animals areself-aware.[18]

In science fictionIn science fiction, self-awareness describes an essential human property that bestows "personhood" onto anon-human. If a computer, alien or other object is described as "self-aware", the reader may assume that it will betreated as completely human character, with similar rights, capabilities and desires to a normal human being. [19] Thewords sentience, sapience and consciousness are used in similar ways in science fiction.

Self-aware 96

See also• Boltzmann brain• Cartesian theater• Confidence• Feldenkrais Method• Higher consciousness• Mindfulness• Memory suppression• Mirror test• Modesty• Self-consciousness• Sentience• Vedanta• Yoga Nidra

References[1] Anthony P. Cohen, Self-Consciousness: An Alternative Anthropology of Identity, 1994. Google Books link. (http:/ / books. google. com/

books?id=Ljw1nXKK-DkC& dq=Anthony+ P. + Cohen+ self+ consciousness& source=gbs_navlinks_s)[2] Rene Descartes Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in the Sciences, pp. 75-6, Sutherland &

Knox, 1850[3] Discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason... (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=jZgDAAAAQAAJ& dq=Discourse+ on+

the+ Method)[4] Great Books of the Western World, v. 35, p. ix, William Benton, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1952 ASIN B000KRJIDS[5] Ecce Homo by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=RPib_YcrjG4C& printsec=titlepage& dq=On+ the+

genealogy+ of+ morals) p. 117[6] Richard Schacht Nietzsche, Genealogy, Morality, p. 244, University of California Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0520083189[7] What Nietzsche Taught (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=A0-XN6_rXV0C& printsec=titlepage& dq=On+ the+ genealogy+ of+ moral. .

. ) pp. 209-10[8] An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=6QYOAAAAYAAJ& dq=John+ Locke+

Concerning+ Human+ Understand. . . )[9] On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche (http:/ / records. viu. ca/ ~johnstoi/ Nietzsche/ genealogytofc. htm)[10] Friedrich Nietzsche On the Genealogy of Morals, p. 120, Oxford University Press, 1999 ISBN 978-0192836175[11] Abraham S. Goldstein The Insanity Defense, p. 9, Yale University Press, 1967 ISBN 978-0300000993[12] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Self-aware#endnote_Locke[13] Thomas S. Duval Self-Awareness and Casual Attribution, p. 1, Springer, 2001 ISBN 978-0792375012[14] Demetriou, A., & Kazi, S. (2001). Unity and modularity in the mind and the self: Studies on the relationships between self-awareness,

personality, and intellectual development from childhood to adolescence. London: Routledge.[15] http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ article/ dn14552-mirror-test-shows-magpies-arent-so-birdbrained. html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&

nsref=news4_head_dn14552[16] http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ article/ dn10402-elephants-see-themselves-in-the-mirror. html[17] http:/ / www. newscientist. com/ article/ dn14552-mirror-test-shows-magpies-arent-so-birdbrained. html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&

nsref=news4_head_dn14552[18] Dorothy L. Cheney Baboon Metaphysics, p. 205, University of Chicago Press, 2008 ISBN 978-0226102443[19] Robert Kolker Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, p. 106, Oxford University Press US, 2006 ISBN 978-0195174526

Article Sources and Contributors 97

Article Sources and ContributorsDavid Bohm  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=332056245  Contributors: A Kit, Abeltje, Acroterion, Ael 2, Alan XAX Freeman, AndriuZ, Art Carlson, Belinrahs,BhangraGirl, BillBell, Billinghurst, Birchmore, Blainster, Bobblehead, Carlo.Ierna, Cgingold, Charles Matthews, Csberger, D6, Demiurge, Duendeverde, ELApro, EPadmirateur, Ealconchel,Fastfission, Floorsheim, Franis, Franis Engel, GangofOne, Gary D, Georgewilliamherbert, Gilisa, Goatasaur, Goethean, Good Olfactory, Grazia11, Gregbard, Headbomb, Heah, Hmains, Ig0774,InquireConsciously, Io, J Di, JEN9841, Jansci Tilleman, Jb849, Jiang, Joelwest, John Z, Jpbowen, KYPark, Kalki, Karol Langner, Kbdank71, Krash, L7HOMAS, Lambiam, Leptons, Liontooth,Liquidhuman, Looxix, Lotte Monz, MER-C, MarcAurel, Masterpiece2000, Maurice Carbonaro, Mbahrami, Medlat, MessinaRagazza, Midgley, Mmarci, Modify, Muchness, Mwanner,NickBush24, Nietzsche 2, Northwesterner1, Npepperell, Olessi, Ombudsman, Outriggr, Paul A, Pedant17, Persephone19, Piano non troppo, Postdlf, PremRasal, QuantumOne, RKiddzz, Renata3,Rich Farmbrough, Richard Taytor, Rjwilmsi, Robofish, Rsabbatini, Sadi Carnot, Sc147, Smithfarm, Splash, Studentofisless, Tarotcards, The wub, TheMadBaron, Thinkg, Threepounds,Timrollpickering, Togo, TonyClarke, Torrazzo, Treybien, Twas Now, Udzu, Versageek, Victor Gijsbers, Victor Lopes, W guice, Waelder, Wasell, Wayward, Wereon, Wik, Woohookitty,Zereshk, 157 anonymous edits

David Chalmers  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=329418266  Contributors: Aaron McDaid, AaronSw, Adam Conover, Artefakt, Banno, Bickbyro, Blainster,Brendanurbanwarrior, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Cardsplayer4life, Chrisscrewball, Closedmouth, Consciousnessmystery, Conti, Danny lost, David Ludwig, Dbtfz, Delirium, EPadmirateur,Fplay, Fredrik, Gary D, Gdm, Harold Philby, Inwind, JMD, JWSchmidt, JaGa, Jaymay, Jdclevenger, Jmcnyc, JosephJP, KSchutte, KYPark, Kbdank71, Lacatosias, Lincolnite, LionKimbro,Malcolmxl5, Marcika, Michaeltomli, Monomas1, Moondyne, Mporch, Mschel, Nick81, Oliver Pereira, Oly, Patrickwilken, Paul foord, Pinktulip, Pomte, Radgeek, Rick64, Rldoan, RyanGerbil10,Sardanaphalus, Simoes, Sir Paul, Skomorokh, Sparkit, Spencerk, Stogie10, TastyPoutine, Te24409nsp, Template namespace initialisation script, Threeafterthree, Tim Chambers, Tomisti,Tonyfaull, Velho, Whosyourjudas, Zenohockey, 78 ,کشرز anonymous edits

The Emperor's New Mind  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=328438285  Contributors: Canon, CharlesGillingham, Christofurio, Cyrius, Cyrruss, Danny, Gaius Cornelius,Gary D, Ilya (usurped), Jmrowland, Joshtrimble, KSchutte, KYPark, LGagnon, Lordvolton, Lurkman, Maurice Carbonaro, Mortene, Outriggr, Paxcoder, Peterdjones, Quorn3000, Rparle, SamHocevar, ScienceApologist, Shlomi Hillel, Steinsky, Sverdrup, Sławomir Biały, Tarcieri, Template namespace initialisation script, Tesi1700, The Anome, Three887, 20 anonymous edits

Stuart Hameroff  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=333650290  Contributors: AustinKnight, Bcat, Benwing, BigInTexas, Bobak, Bobo192, Charles Matthews, Crazypaco,Davin, Davy p, Deglr6328, Demophon, Docu, ErwinsMoggie, Gaius Cornelius, Garion96, Gary D, Gene Nygaard, Hamsterlopithecus, J JMesserly, J.delanoy, Jfdwolff, Johnpacklambert,Lisatwo, Lordvolton, Maximus Rex, Mikker, Motor, Patrickwilken, Persephone19, Porkolt60, Rickybuchanan, RodC, Romanpoet, Rsabbatini, Sam Hocevar, Sir Paul, TheParanoidOne, TimStarling, Tonyfaull, Turgonml, Utternutter, YUL89YYZ, Zereshk, 28 anonymous edits

Holonomic brain theory  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=332550915  Contributors: 1ForTheMoney, A Ramachandran, Aaron Brenneman, Algebraist, Antaeus Feldspar,Arkansas001, Ask123, Badguy21, Blainster, Bookandcoffee, Catalyst2007, Cgingold, Crzrussian, DannyDaWriter, FT2, GangofOne, Gary D, Goethean, GraemeL, Grafen, Holon, Jammus,Johnbod, KYPark, Karada, Looie496, Lordvolton, Loxley, Mattisse, Mccready, Midgley, Natalya, Ombudsman, Phoenix-forgotten, Pnrj, RichardF, Scott5834, Srleffler, The Anome, Three887,TimBentley, Travis.Thurston, USAjp22, Valarians, Whatever404, Woohookitty, Zazaban, 25 anonymous edits

Orch- OR  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=331253292  Contributors: AugustinMa, Bardon Dornal, Bboyneko, BenRG, Brookie, C S, Ciphergoth, Clicketyclack, Cmallett,DV8 2XL, Danko Georgiev MD, Deathphoenix, Deglr6328, Delta G, El C, Euphrosyne, Full Shunyata, Gary D, Gene Nygaard, Gil987, Giraffedata, HEL, Hameroff, Hhmaung, Iridescent,Jefffire, Jkasd, JonathanD, Kablamo2007, Karch, MCB, Maury Markowitz, Mbell, Mgiganteus1, Michael Hardy, Nagualdesign, Night Gyr, OlgaMats, Patrickwilken, Pennarin, Persephone19,Peterdjones, QueenAdelaide, ReluctantPhilosopher, Rich Farmbrough, Rickybuchanan, Robma, Sperxios, Tarcieri, The Anome, Three887, Tijmz, Tim Shuba, Ufoolme, Vald, Weirdy,WereSpielChequers, Wingedsubmariner, 55 anonymous edits

Roger Penrose  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=332515654  Contributors: .mau., 134.132.115.xxx, 213.253.39.xxx, Ael 2, Allansteel, Andrei Stroe, Andrew Norman,Andycjp, Andyfugard, Angr, Anskas, Aratuk, Arpingstone, Attilios, Avatar, Average Earthman, BBC Cookoo, BHA, Bartosz, Beanyk, Berasategui, BillFlis, Billlion, Blainster, Blakkandekka,Bletchley, Bunzil, Burn, CALR, CJLL Wright, Calypso, Cane01, CapFan, Capuchin, CarolGray, Cgingold, Chagai, CharlesHBennett, Chicheley, Ck lostsword, Concertcarrot, Conversion script,Creol, D6, DAFMM, DJIndica, DS1000, Dabomb87, DanLadouce, DaveGorman, DavidLaurenson, Davy p, Dbollard99, Demophon, Derek Ross, Dianelos, Dr Dec, Edemaine, Eightheads,Emerson7, Ericross, Erik9, ErwinsMoggie, EvanProdromou, Everyking, Flaming Ferrari, Flewis, Fredrik, Garion96, Gary D, Giftlite, Gregbard, Ground Zero, Gwern, Hadal, Headbomb, Hillman,Hugo Dufort, Hve, Hypnosifl, Icairns, Ilya (usurped), Ironholds, JBellis, Jacopo Werther, Jaredwf, Jeandré du Toit, JeffBurdges, JocK, JohnOwens, Johnleemk, Johnstone, Joseph Myers,Jpbowen, Juko, JustAddPeter, KYPark, Kaihsu, Kalki, KasugaHuang, Kenneth M Burke, Kevyn, LC, LadyofShalott, Lenaic, Ligulem, Little guru, LorenzoB, Lumidek, Ma'ame Michu,Magnuscat, MarSch, Marcoscramer, Marudubshinki, Maurice Carbonaro, Mcarling, Mervyn, Michael Drew, Michael Hardy, Mike Schwartz, MikeVitale, Miserlou, Mortene, Motor, N.Nahber,N12345n, Naturezak, Nigosh, Nkv, Nurban, Olivierd, Operaghost77, Outriggr, ParoXoN, Paul A, Pde, Pdivos, PedroElls, Peripitus, Persephone19, Peter Ballard, Peterdjones, Pizza1512, Plaes,Proteus, Psb777, QueenAdelaide, RJBurkhart3, RO BlueMonday, RedWolf, Remy B, Rich Farmbrough, Rjw57, RodC, Roger Hui, Roozbeh, Roundhouse0, Rsabbatini, Rst20xx, Ruud Koot,SBloemen, SGBailey, SRWenner, Salix alba, ScienceApologist, Scope creep, Seb, Shd, Shibidee, SietskeEN, Sigma 7, Silverfish70, Snowolf, Somoza, SpNeo, Sperxios, Srnec, Starx, SteveCoast,SuperGirl, Supertask, Sverdrup, Tarquin, That Guy, From That Show!, The wub, Tijmz, Tim Retout, Timrollpickering, Tkeu, TorontoFever, Triskell, Tstrobaugh, Utternutter, Vicki Rosenzweig,Viriditas, Willdye, Wyklety, XJamRastafire, Xris0, YUL89YYZ, Ycdkwm, Yrodro, Zereshk, Ziounclesi, Zumbo, 215 anonymous edits

Karl H. Pribram  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=333411123  Contributors: 6birc, A314268, Allen3, Antaeus Feldspar, Bomac, Cgingold, Cuchullain, D6, DMG413, Denny,FT2, Gamahucheur, Gareth Jones, Gary D, Hu, Iaai 99, J'raxis, Johnpacklambert, Jonegan, KrakatoaKatie, LMBM2012, Lotte Monz, M.Ajnhorn, MarcAurel, Midgley, Mike Dillon, Mpulier,Nanouk, Nv8200p, Olessi, Ombudsman, Pedrovitorh2, Persephone19, PeterStJohn, RogDel, Rsabbatini, SCEhardt, Sadi Carnot, Siddhi.powers, Suidafrikaan, Tassedethe, WhatamIdoing,Xmarquez, Zahd, 28 anonymous edits

Quantum biology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=333239609  Contributors: Baccyak4H, Bci2, BhangraGirl, BigInTexas, Chocobo93, DGG, Gary D, Jennylen,JerroldPease-Atlanta, Martinphi, Moreschi, Ombudsman, Outriggr, Peter morrell, Profbrumby, Qmspirit, Sam Dangit, ScienceApologist, Tassedethe, Tevildo, Vanished user, Zack wadghiri, 10anonymous edits

Quantum brain dynamics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=290478717  Contributors: Abu badali, Ahoerstemeier, Andris, Bowendan82, Danko Georgiev MD, Dbachmann,Dndn1011, Eigenlambda, Fairway, Francs2000, GangofOne, Gary D, Gregor Strasser, Julia Neumann, KSchutte, Keflavich, Lisatwo, Loxley, Masegi, Ntmatter, Oleg Alexandrov, Persephone19,QueenAdelaide, Radagast83, Ripe, SimonP, Slicky, Sverdrup, Wile E. Heresiarch, Zaharous, 27 anonymous edits

Quantum mind  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=331018221  Contributors: 2over0, Agalmic, Antaeus Feldspar, Arne Heise, Ask123, Astatine-210, B9 hummingbirdhovering, Barbara Shack, BenRG, Bjflanagan, Bruce Couper, CLAVDIVS, CapitalR, Capricorn42, Casimir9999, Cesaar, Ched Davis, Cholmes75, Ckatz, DCDuring, DFRussia, Davy p,Dbachmann, Delta Tango, Dilane, Dmitry Brant, Dndn1011, Docu, Długosz, ESkog, Eequor, Enric Naval, Fragglet, French Tourist, Fryed-peach, Gadfium, Gary D, Geoff, Gil987, Gregbard,Hypnosifl, JWSchmidt, JaGa, Jared81, Jeoffry.smart, Jhskulk, JohnCD, Johnxe22, Joseph Solis in Australia, Julia Neumann, Just Another Dan, Keenan Pepper, Lightbound, Likebox,Lincolndogs, Looie496, Loxley, Lucywills, Lumos3, Malcolmxl5, Mandarax, Mark Germine, M.D., Mark Pharoah, Masegi, Matpitka, Maurice Carbonaro, Maximus Rex, Memenen, MichaelHardy, Michael Lazaro, Michaelbusch, Mitteldorf, Mporch, Mporter, Nihilo 01, Oleg Alexandrov, Ombudsman, Ospalh, ParlorGames, Patrickwilken, Pearle, Persephone19, Peterdjones,PhilHibbs, Pietdesomere, Pwjb, RJaguar3, Radagast83, Remy B, Rich Farmbrough, Ripe, Rjwilmsi, Roadrunner, RookZERO, Salad Days, SamuelRiv, SearedAji, Sietec, Sparkit, Stephen Patrick,Sławomir Biały, Terrible tony, The Anome, The Anonymous One, Three887, Tim Starling, Titanium, Uruk2008, WLU, WOSlinker, Warut, WhatamIdoing, Whig, WikiSlasher, William M.Connolley, Winnow, Xasodfuih, Zimmy 1970, 154 anonymous edits

The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=330765085  Contributors: 00levib, Alison, Altima5, Art LaPella,Badgerpatrol, Blainster, Book-worm, CALR, Carlorovelli, Ceyockey, CommonsDelinker, Długosz, Fredrik, Gary D, Gaurav1146, GregorB, Hmonroe, Inigo38, Inky, Jaganath, Leibniz,Lucasfborkel, Maury Markowitz, Narxysus, Oleg Alexandrov, Ophion, Peterdjones, Remy B, Sławomir Biały, The Anome, Three887, Truthnlove, Twister594, Xezbeth, 24 anonymous edits

Shadows of the Mind  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=328439108  Contributors: Army1987, Banus, Barticus88, Brian0918, Długosz, Gary D, GregorB, Gwern, Harrigan,Joegoodbud, KYPark, LadyofShalott, Lordvolton, Pernogr, Peterdjones, Remy B, Rlbyrne, Slimymeteor, Sławomir Biały, Tarcieri, Three887, Wikianon, 7 anonymous edits

Henry Stapp  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=330156433  Contributors: Attilios, Bfinn, Brews ohare, Carabinieri, Gary D, Gwazdor, HoboJunction, JHunterJ, Light current,Lupin, Mani1, Miguel de Servet, Peterdjones, Phoe, The hanged man, Yomangani, Zereshk, 16 anonymous edits

Evan Harris Walker  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=326721046  Contributors: AuburnPilot, Ceyockey, Deb, Esterson, Gary D, HeberMK, Hillman, Howardjp, Jaraalbe,Jeffrey O. Gustafson, Keilana, Lincher, Looper5920, Omarcheeseboro, Pen of bushido, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Skoojal, TexasAndroid, Zereshk, 10 anonymous edits

Theory of mind  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=333710651  Contributors: A Ramachandran, A314268, AFdeCH, Adhib, AdjustShift, Aia philosophia, Allen234, AndreasPDemetriou, Anonywiki, Apokrif, Aranel, Ashmoo, BHC, Bdeen, Berrinam, Bfinn, Bishopclinics, Blow of Light, Bobbomo1, Bobo192, Bracton, Chopchopwhitey, DV8 2XL, DanielCD,

Article Sources and Contributors 98

David Gerard, Dawn Bard, Dysprosia, Dzhim, Eaglizard, Ed2122, Ehheh, El C, Esowteric, Eubulides, FT2, FayssalF, Fishermansbay, GalaazV, Gazpacho, Greg zimmerman, Gregbard,Hackwrench, Hoof Hearted, Iolar, J.delanoy, JWSchmidt, Johnkarp, KnowledgeOfSelf, Kroose, Looie496, Lordvolton, Loxley, Lynch8000s, Lyrl, Masterpiece2000, Matt Zellman, Melesse,Mexaguil, Michael Hardy, Mifter, Mike Schwartz, Mjr162006, Neuropsic, Octopus-Hands, Omnipaedista, Otisjimmy1, Pauli133, Pearle, Peterburton, Peterdjones, Piperh, Polynova,ProgHead777, Protez, RHaworth, Raphael s, Razorflame, Reinyday, RexNL, Rich Farmbrough, Rlaitinen, Roscoe x, Sam Spade, SandyGeorgia, SlackerMom, Snoyes, Soap,Subash.chandran007, Supernaut76, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, Texture, TheObtuseAngleOfDoom, Titoxd, Trickstar, Vaughan, Vynbos, Wegner48, Whatever404, Wingspeed, Zagubov, 147anonymous edits

Hard problem of consciousness  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=333143410  Contributors: Alienus, ArrowmanCoder, Barbara Shack, Barnesen, Brent Allsop, Caltechdoc,Cgingold, Chealer, Cholling, David Ludwig, Dbachmann, Diza, DugDownDeep, Favonian, Iampreston, Jw2035, Kevin aylward, Koavf, Liverwort, Mak Thorpe, Michael Hardy, Mporch,Mprm86, Noclevername, Novacatz, Nurg, Oddity-, Olya, Peterdjones, Rebtech, Reinyday, Remuel, Remy B, Riverfield, Robin S, Shanata, Smithfarm, Spiralsun1, Svick, Threeafterthree,Treharne, Vanyo, Velho, Vesal, Was a bee, 28 anonymous edits

Evolutionary neuroscience  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=301907578  Contributors: Adashiel, Andycjp, Antaeus Feldspar, Bridwater, Coelacan, Cogpsych, Edhubbard,Epastore, Igiffin, KrisK, Looie496, Lord Patrick, Malcolma, Megan1967, Metanoid, Mietchen, Neuromere, Ombudsman, 18 anonymous edits

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=332467604  Contributors: ***Ria777, 2over0, AmeriCan, Auntof6, BenRG, Calton, Centrx,Cgingold, Clicketyclack, DUBJAY04, DV8 2XL, Dbachmann, Deglr6328, Dmitry Brant, Długosz, Enric Naval, Fences and windows, Gil987, Glen Davidson, Icairns, J4m3sb0nd, Jaythreeo0,Kieff, Loxley, Mpatel, Myscience, Pascal666, Phatmonkey, Pnrj, Red Hong, SamuelRiv, Sandstein, Sanitycult, ScienceApologist, Shevchenko Nikolay, Slusk, Sparkit, Tarotcards,Theboywonder, Three887, Uruk2008, WLU, WadeSimMiser, 35 anonymous edits

Consciousness causes collapse  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=319387348  Contributors: All Is One, Bubba73, Count Iblis, Dave1185, David Meggitt, Dr. Morbius,EPadmirateur, Jhopkins, Likebox, Lordvolton, Michael C Price, OMCV, Persephone19, Peterdjones, Robert K S, Seth Nimbosa, 2 anonymous edits

Bohm interpretation  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=326542520  Contributors: 1ForTheMoney, A.C. Norman, Agger, Alessandro70, Andersæøå, Andrewpmk, AoS1014,Arjen Dijksman, AshtonBenson, Barbara Shack, Benja, Borat fan, CSTAR, Charles Matthews, Cmdulya, Cojoco, DV8 2XL, Dan Gluck, Dataweaver, Deadly Nut, Dhemm, Dmr2,DomenicDenicola, Dragon's Blood, Duduong, Duendeverde, Dvtausk, ESkog, Ebitnet, Editorius, Edward, Emurphy42, Evand, Extremophile, Eyv, Falcorian, Floorsheim, Freakofnurture,GangofOne, Giftlite, Goethean, Gregbard, GregorB, Holon, Hypnosifl, IRevLinas, Iridescent, Itangalo, Jambaugh, Jason Davies, Jefffire, Jfire, Jmundo, John Reaves, Jostylr, KSchutte,Kalonymos, Kevin aylward, Kkchang, Kripkenstein, Kuratowski's Ghost, L0rents, L33tminion, LC, Leafyplant, Lexivore, Likebox, Linas, Loren Rosen, Lumidek, M0rph, MarSch, Michael CPrice, Michael Devore, Michael Hardy, Michael Rogers, Mike Peel, Mir Harven, Murf42, Noah Salzman, Nsomnia03, Olleicua, Pfalstad, Phys-demystifier, Plumbago, Pretzelpaws, RDBury,RJN, RandomHumanoid, Rednblu, Rich Farmbrough, Rjwilmsi, Roadrunner, RogueNinja, SQL, Scentoni, Sfwild, SiegeLord, Skewyou, Smithfarm, Stephen B Streater, SuezanneC Baskerville,Sverdrup, Swiftly, The Anome, The Anonymous One, Tim Starling, Timwi, Tjic, Tnorsen, Togo, Tomixdf, Tonymec, Tumulka, Ummonk, Vegaswikian, Venny85, Voorlandt, Vuen,W1k13rh3nry, Waleswatcher, Weierstrass, Were-Bunny, Wireader, WolfmanSF, Yafujifide, ZRPerry, Zicovich, Zoicon5, 176 anonymous edits

Self- aware  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=17561543  Contributors: 1ForTheMoney, 3Ptsqred, Abu badali, Adrigon, Ancheta Wis, Andareed, AndreasPDemetriou, AndrewLancaster, Arru, ArtificioSapiens, BURNyA, Banno, Barkjon, Barticus88, Beetstra, Bewildebeast, Biblbroks, Blynnc53, Brown016, Brythain, CapitalR, Captain Crawdad, Carabinieri, Carnby,CharlesGillingham, Clashwho, Cogpsych, Conti, DCDuring, Daniel Case, Danlev, DbelangeB, Decltype, Downwiththewikness, Dysmorodrepanis, Ehheh, Eric-Wester, Ewlyahoocom, FT2,Fetofs, Fillup, Geometer, Gregbard, Gscshoyru, Hairy Dude, Haoie, IanUK, ImperfectlyInformed, Inseeisyou, Interactor, Itschris, JDPhD, Jamesontai, Japanese Searobin, Jcbutler, Johnkarp,Johnteslade, Jtneill, KSchutte, Karl-Henner, Kipholbeck, Kktor, KnowledgeAndVision, Kotra, La goutte de pluie, Letranova, Loganberry, Lord E, Lycurgus, Malo, Mattisse, Matty j, MauriceCarbonaro, Metta Bubble, Mikael Häggström, Moe Epsilon, Moraleboost, Mystyc1, NLUT, NeoApocalypse, Neptunius, Newbyguesses, Nickinuu, Nickyus, NinetyNineFennelSeeds,Nirvana2013, Oatmeal batman, Oxymoron83, Peter Ellis, Porges, Qxz, Radagast83, Rajah, Rajiv.sharangpani, RashmiPatel, Reyk, Robsomebody, RobyWayne, Rodhullandemu, Rowsees,SD6-Agent, Science4sail, Selfawareness.stevensadleir, Sfnile, Silly eve, Spencerk, Straw Cat, Supertask, Talkmuchlater, Thatguyflint, The Anome, The Whore's Sores, Thingg, Toughpigs,Trickstar, TyrantX, Tzethus, UniverSoul, Vegetator, WRK, Weariest, Wegner48, WereSpielChequers, Will Beback, Zahd, Zara1709, 206 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 99

Image Sources, Licenses and ContributorsImage:David Bohm.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:David_Bohm.jpg  License: Attribution  Contributors: Original uploader was Karol Langner at en.wikipediaImage:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Zscout370File:David Chalmers TASC2008.JPG  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:David_Chalmers_TASC2008.JPG  License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0  Contributors:User:ZereshkImage:Stuart Hameroff TASC2008.JPG  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Stuart_Hameroff_TASC2008.JPG  License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0  Contributors:User:ZereshkImage:Roger Penrose.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Roger_Penrose.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Jerry BauerImage:roger_penrose_sig.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Roger_penrose_sig.jpg  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Original uploader wasBletchley at en.wikipediaImage:Roger-Penrose-Kachelstruktur.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Roger-Penrose-Kachelstruktur.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5 Contributors: Avatar, Darapti, Mattes, Schimmelreiter, Sparkit, Vincent Steenberg, 3 anonymous editsImage:RogerPenrose CapturingInfinity.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:RogerPenrose_CapturingInfinity.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Contributors: Procsilas MoscasImage:Pribram Tucson2.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pribram_Tucson2.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:ZereshkImage:Shadows_of_the_Mind.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Shadows_of_the_Mind.jpg  License: unknown  Contributors: Tarcieri, 1 anonymous editsImage:doppelspalt.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Doppelspalt.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: AnonMoos, Glenn, Opasson

License 100

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unportedhttp:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/