The Curious Case of a Quantum Mind
The hypothesis of a quantum mind may seem like a ridiculous notion, over the head of a layperson, or even a wild goose chase to some people. To be fair though, it could be all of those things. Despite this and since the advent of quantum mechanics (QM), there has been an emerging trend of reputable, renown, and interdisciplinary scientists with profound reasons for hypothesizing whether or not the brain itself possesses quantum computational faculties working in parallel with the classic computational faculties that we all know and love. Why is this? How can this even be possible? Why does it matter to anyone outside of theoretical physics?
Before anything else, I feel that it is important to highlight that scientists are not denying the existence of electrochemical/classical computational faculties nor are they negated by the speculation of a quantum mind; this is a common misconception. In reality, a subset of scientists are merely hypothesizing, which is essentially a well-formed ponderation, that the mind has to have quantum mechanical faculties at its disposal for executive cognitive functions and consciousness.
Also, it’s important to point out that this isn’t a shot in the dark either. Instead, the pursuit of a quantum mind is ultimately due to our understanding of our own observation being able to drastically alter the results of experiments done on the quantum level such as the double-slit experiment as exhibited above by Jim Khalili; thankfully done so in a manner that anyone can understand. Regardless of your approach though, a rudimentary understanding of the double-slit experiment is necessary for anything in this post to make any amount of sense.
Moving on, as a result of the double-slit experiment and others, science has been forced to accept the dualistic nature of particles as well as the effect that our mere observation has on them. This effect is commonly referred to as the Observer Effect. Since we have no causal, mechanistic explanation for this behavior of nature, the catastrophe it presents for science is referred to as The Measurement Problem. Combined, they set the stage for what is still the central mystery in QM to this day as we cannot consolidate the involvement of consciousness in this picture as of yet, only acknowledge the phenomenon itself. As such and while the various hypotheses surrounding a quantum mind ultimately diverge down their own path like buckshot, these pursuits are rooted in a common derivation of the measurement problem referred to as the Von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation.
Since any conscious being can reproduce this experiment, even a dog Bella, scientists are forced to ask various questions about our own mind such as whether or not it has quantum mechanical functions of its own. Specifically, science is wondering if consciousness must, in turn, be a consequence of quantum phenomena in order to have such a pronounced effect on experiments involving quantum systems like the DSE. Put simply, researchers are merely hypothesizing as to whether or not it “takes one to know one” with regard to quantum systems and if our effect on quantum experiments. Because of this, our own ability to have an effect on quantum systems without physical interaction is ultimately the justification science has for hypothesizing about a quantum mind with a clear conscience. Like it or not, that’s why.
“It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” -Eugene Wigner
But how is this possible? And why quantum computation? From here, scientists such as Jon von Neumann, Roger Penrose, Jerome Busemeyer, Matthew Fisher, and plenty of others worthy of mention have gone on to loosely stitch this pursuit together with the computational theory of mind, implying that the mind itself may not only be a computer but also be quantum computational due to various advantages we have over classical computation that seems distinctly quantum. Some like Dr. Busemeyer even use this understanding to question whether the mind is a classical computer capable of emulating a quantum computer instead.
For those not aware, quantum computers aren’t universally better than classical computers such as our iPhones and our MacBooks; there are types of computations they perform better just the same. Because of the types of calculations that we are exceptional at, it is becoming apparent to science that we are uniquely qualified for many of the things that we are seeing and expecting further from quantum computation. When also considering that it took 12 tons of IBM’s Watson with an offline cache of what can basically be referred to as “the internet stored in RAM” necessary to defeat the 3lb brain between our ears at Jeopardy, it’s perfectly rational. Especially when considering the size and energy efficiency advantages that quantum computation has over classical computation in some scenarios. All of which may help further explain why many in the field of AI believe that quantum computation will ultimately be their edge over the human brain. In short, scientists are simply wondering if it could take a quantum computer to beat a quantum computer at quantum things and whether this could harden the argument for both a computational and a quantum mind as the answer is yes, for now.
Although the pursuit of a quantum mind has had popular dissent from the likes of Max Tegmark, Tegmark himself has even gone on to write about the quantum nature of the mind. Meanwhile, Michael Swift, Chris Van de Walle, and Matthew Fisher’s work on Posner molecules appear to account for Tegmark’s initial refutations to Penrose’s work quite well. Because of this, exactly how this is possible if at all, is up for discussion and is still anyone’s game but I have linked Dr. Fisher’s brief introduction to his work above as he seems to have set the high bar for now.
However and if it truly does take one to know one on a quantum level, then couldn’t we logically infer that we can have this effect in each other via observation in much the same fashion as we affect quantum systems? Further and by making this simple inference for the sake of argument, shouldn’t we be able to find empirical evidence in support or refutation for this inference within Psychology as it’s safe to say that they probably would have noticed such phenomena by now.
Ironically, it seems as if the field of Psychology does have an answer for this. Coincidentally, they have an observer effect of their own, commonly called the Hawthorne Effect. Psychology even has a field commonly referred to as Reactivity which studies our mannerisms under observation as opposed to when we think that no one is watching. In fact, Psychology’s understanding of this happens to be why most psychological experiments involve fooling their subjects so that they do not skew results by knowing what is being measured ahead of time. It almost goes without saying, but it would be foolish to say that we aren’t wildly sensitive to observation as a species, no physical interaction required.
To be fair and even though there is no evidentiary support of this, it is widely accepted in both Psychology and Physics that their fields don’t intermix, which certainly doesn’t help the fact that there are few interdisciplinary researchers in this field at the moment. So it’s easy to see how this aspect of our existence could be overlooked while further rationalizing why rare progress belongs to these rare interdisciplinary pursuits.
But why do scientists and Psychologists get to have all of the fun? After all, haven’t we all been in situations in public ranging from bars to intersections where we have instinctually intercepted the gaze of another person looking at us intently, almost as if they yelled our name? Haven’t we have all been caught observing another for various reasons, some more innocent than others. To no surprise, we do all matter of weird things when no one is watching as opposed to when we’re in public or under observation, much like the particles comprising us all, and there is a reason why the term “dance like nobody is watching” makes so much sense to many of us. Needless to say, from starting fights to hailing a waiter, we seem to get a lot done with our gaze and this is an experience common to us all.
Despite this common experience which anyone may verify for themselves, there is no causal, mechanistic explanation for this aspect of our existence or the measurement problem as of now. Hypothetically though and much like the double-slit experiment, if our own behaviors could be correlated back to information about a quantum state, then another person observing these behaviors would also collapse their wave-function and could cause such behavior regardless of their understanding of QM and reproduce this phenomenon.
“At the heart of quantum mechanics is a rule that sometimes governs politicians or CEOs — as long as no one is watching, anything goes” -Lawrence Krauss
Ultimately, the value of this pursuit to humanity is purely speculative and subjective. As an engineer with no real iron in this fire though, something that fascinates me about the hypothesis of a quantum mind is the implications to quantum computation itself. For instance, and if found to be true, it showcases the possibility of being able to perform quantum computations without having to exert significant resources focused on maintaining the environment within a quantum computer at temperatures nearing absolute zero as a hedge against decoherence. Because of this, the energy savings, as well as the portability stemming from such understanding having the potential to make significant waves throughout the field of technology, as it lessens the need for energy and extreme cooling to perform quantum calculations. All of which makes me think this pursuit could yield significant value to industry and society.
While some may see hypotheses of a quantum mind as pointless, it is my contention that answering questions that teach us something about ourselves is why philosophers invented science in the first place. Although learning about the stars, black holes, and the universe are great intellectual pursuits, such pursuits seem pointless unless they can ultimately educate us about ourselves and give us one less thing to argue about amongst each other. Obviously, this is a pipe dream for now, but who knows what we could accomplish and what little we would have to argue about if we all had a common understanding of QM? Let alone if we collectively possessed the philosophy and sound mind necessary to pursue such fundamental aspects of nature and improve upon our limited understanding of it? I digress.
In summary, the observer effect and our own sensitivity to observation without physical interaction are mere physical correlates of a quantum mind and cannot entirely prove a quantum mind in unison. However, this pursuit instantly becomes much more compelling when considering our various computational advantages and limitations, sensitivity to observation, and indeterminate nature though. Regardless of your stance on this matter, we seem to quack like quantum ducks and this is ultimately why scientists have great reasons to pursue the hypothesis of a quantum mind. The rest, both mechanism and importance of a quantum mind, appears to be subjective and open to debate for now.
