Talk:Quantum mind

Some responses to earlier critiques:

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

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

Proposal to move some content from quantum cognition into this article.

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

David Pearce

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

May I just briefly defend my sanity? Anyone who understands decoherence (which you do!) will recognise why a quantum-theoretic explanation of phenomenal binding is far-fetched. The CNS is too hot! But the problem is science has no idea how phenomenal binding could be _classically_ explicable either - which doesn't leave us with many (physicalist) options: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem

Given textbook neuroscience, why aren't we just (at most) what philosopher Phil Goff christened "micro-experiential zombies" - mere patterns of Jamesian "mind dust"? Only someone who groks the neuroscientific mystery of binding will be willing to explore highly implausible quantum-theoretic solutions to an otherwise intractable problem. Note that what makes a "Schrödinger's neurons" proposal fringe isn't new physics - assuming the unitary Schrödinger dynamics, such superpositions of neuronal feature-processors _must_ exist - but rather, the idea such fleeting sub-femtosecond superpositions could have any conceivable relevance to our phenomenally-bound minds. And maybe common sense is correct! But one man's reductio ad absurdum is another man's experimentally falsifiable prediction. I'm simply curious what tomorrow's interferometry will tell us. Davidcpearce (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. To be clear, I don't think the decoherence-related material I deleted was incorrect. (I personally believe the idea of naive quantum interference playing any role in neurobiology is silly.) However, the content was only backed by primary references with few citations, and thus not material suitable for Wikipedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

More lunacy, you'll feel, but IMO the eminence of some of the authors means that a "no-collapse" sub-section of quantum mind theories is warranted:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38920469/

("Here, we present a novel proposal: Conscious experience arises whenever a quantum mechanical superposition forms.") Davidcpearce (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Dubious citations.

This primary ref has 20 citations, 6 by the authors themselves. This puts it in WP:FRINGE in my opinion:

• Basil J. Hiley, Paavo Pylkkänen: Naturalizing the mind in a quantum framework. In Paavo Pylkkänen and Tere Vadén (eds.): Dimensions of conscious experience, Advances in Consciousness Research, Volume 37, John Benjamins B.V., 2001, ISBN 90-272-5157-6, pages 119–144

This ref seems to be an unreviewed blog post that summarizes Bohm book

• Raggett, Simon. "The Implicate Order Based on:- Wholeness and the Implicate Order – David Bohm". Quantum Mind. Archived from the original on 20 February 2020. Retrieved 11 September 2023.

Bohm's book itself is according to the publisher "inspired by mysticism" Johnjbarton (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)