Our conscious minds exist in the Universe, therefore they should be identified with physical states that are subject to physical laws. In classical theories of mind, the mental states are identified with brain states that satisfy the deterministic laws of classical mechanics. This approach, however, leads to insurmountable paradoxes such as epiphenomenal minds and illusionary free will. Alternatively, one may identify mental states with quantum states realized within the brain and try to resolve the above paradoxes using the standard Hilbert (...) space formalism of quantum mechanics. In this essay, we first show that identification of mind states with quantum states within the brain is biologically feasible, and then elaborating on the mathematical proofs of two quantum mechanical no-go theorems, we explain why quantum theory might have profound implications for the scientific understanding of one's mental states, self identity, beliefs and free will. (shrink)

The principles of classical physics, including deterministic dynamics and observability of physical states, are incompatible with the existence of unobservable conscious minds that possess free will. Attempts to directly accommodate consciousness in a classical world lead to philosophical paradoxes such as causally ineffective consciousness and possibility of alternate worlds in which functional brain isomorphs behave identically but lack conscious experiences. Here, we show that because Chalmers’ principle of organizational invariance is based on a deficient nineteenth century classical physics, it is (...) inherently flawed and implies evolutionary inexplicable epiphenomenal consciousness. Consequently, if consciousness is a fundamental ingredient of physical reality, no psychophysical laws such as Chalmers’ principle of organizational invariance are needed to establish correspondence between conscious experiences and brain function. Quantum mechanics is the most successful and only modern physical theory capable of naturally accommodating consciousness without violation of physical laws. (shrink)

We discuss the multiple pass interferometer setup proposed by Unruh, and clarify some of the fundamental issues linked with complementarity. We explicitly state all mathematical instructions for manipulating the quantum amplitudes and assessing the probability distribution functions. In this respect we show that certain purely math logical limitations (requirement for consistency) prevent one to argue that there is one-to-one corespondence between paths 1 and 2 and the exit gates 10 and 9 ("which way" interpretation), and at the same time insist (...) on pure state density matrix, i. e. existent nonmeasured interference in the second building block of Unruh's interferometer. Furthermore one cannot even argue that Unruh's setup is described by mixed density matrix that keeps the one-to-one correspondence between the paths 1 and 2 and the exit gates. This last claim is mathematically consistent, however is experimentally disprovable - because one may potentially distinguish mixed quantum state from pure quantum state. One just lets the two beams captured at the exit gates cross each other. If interference can be observed the two exit gates were coherent and provide beams in pure state (superposition), while if interference cannot be observed, the state of the exit gates was mixed one. Since the captured beams at the exit gates in Unruh's experiment could interfere this implies that the whole setup is characterized with pure state density matrix and does not preserve the one-to-one correspondence between the entry points and exit gates, even in case where the destructive interference in arm 5 of the interferometer is not measured. Therefore the correct (experimentally plausible and mathematically consistent) exposition of complementarity introduced by Georgiev in 2004 is that Unruh's setup is characterized by pure state density matrix and does not keep the suggested by Unruh one-to-one correspondence. As an appendix is shown the equivalence between Unruh's setup and Afshar's setup and correct analysis of Afshar's experiment is also provided. (shrink)

In this paper we try to make a clear distinction between quantum mysticism and quantum mind theory. Quackery always accompanies science especially in controversial and still under development areas and since the quantum mind theory is a science youngster it must clearly demarcate itself from the great stuff of pseudo-science currently patronized by the term "quantum mind". Quantum theory has attracted a big deal of attention and opened new avenues for building up a physical theory of mind because its principles (...) and experimental foundations are as strange as the phenomenon of consciousness itself. Yet, the unwarranted recourse to paranormal phenomena as supporting the quantum mind theory plus the extremely bad biological mismodeling of brain physiology lead to great scepticism about the viability of the approach. We give as an example the Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR model with a list of twenty four problems not being repaired for a whole decade after the birth of the model in 1996. In the exposition we have tried not only to pesent critique of the spotted flaws, but to provide novel possibilities towards creation of neuroscientific quantum model of mind that incorporates all the available data from the basic disciplines (biochemistry, cell physiology, etc.) up to the clinical observations (neurology, neurosurgery, molecular psychiatry, etc.). Thus in a concise fashion we outline what can be done scientifically to improve the Q-mind theory and start a research programme (in Lakatos sense) that is independent on the particular flaws in some of the existing Q-mind models. (shrink)

There are many blank areas in understanding the brain dynamics and especially how it gives rise to consciousness. Quantum mechanics is believed to be capable of explaining the enigma of conscious experience, however till now there is not good enough model considering both the data from clinical neurology and having some explanatory power! In this paper is presented a novel model in defence of macroscopic quantum events within and between neural cells. The beta-neurexin-neuroligin-1 link is claimed to be not just (...) the core of the central neural synapse, instead it is a device mediating entanglement between the cytoskeletons of the cortical neurons. Thus a macroscopic quantum state can extend throughout large brain cortical areas and the subsequent collapse of the wavefunction could affect simultaneously the subneuronal events in millions of neurons. The beta-neurexin-neuroligin-1 complex also controls the process of exocytosis and provides an interesting and simple mechanism for retrograde signalling during learning-dependent changes in synaptic connectivity. (shrink)

In neurophysiology it is widely assumed that our mind operates in millisecond timescale. This view might be wrong, because if consciousness is quantum coherent phenomenon at the level of protein assemblies, then its dynamic timescale can be picosecond one.