By David Stephen
There is a paper in entropy, Testing the Conjecture That Quantum Processes Create Conscious Experience, where the authors wrote, “Here, we present a novel proposal: Conscious experience arises whenever a quantum mechanical superposition forms. Our proposal has several implications: First, it suggests that the structure of the superposition determines the qualia of the experience. Second, quantum entanglement naturally solves the binding problem, ensuring the unity of phenomenal experience. Finally, a moment of agency may coincide with the formation of a superposition state. We outline a research program to experimentally test our conjecture via a sequence of quantum biology experiments. Applying these ideas opens up the possibility of expanding human conscious experience through brain–quantum computer interfaces. It relies on expanding one’s own consciousness; hence, we will refer to this method as the expansion protocol. In an experimentum crucis, one would establish a physical link between a human brain and a quantum computer that would enable coherent interactions and mediate entanglement. If our conjecture is accurate, this should enable richer conscious experiences of the combined system, requiring more descriptive bits than the experiences the human reports without the link.”
Why would human consciousness work like a quantum process? What are the options for how human consciousness works that make quantum processes a leading likelihood? Is quantum possible in the brain, hence the answer, or is it actually viable?
All matter has atoms. Atoms have subatomic particles. Matter also has molecules. It is possible to explain several processes at the level of subatomic particles or molecules. But does it mean that because something is available or possible in the brain or elsewhere, it is mechanistically responsible?
Answers that are sought in neuroscience to explain observations are not just to find any link or to stretch guesses. Neuroscience has a famous concept that the brain generates predictions. There is no wide explanation for how the brain does this. If consciousness were a quantum process, a central explanation for how the brain generates predictions could have come from quantum, before attempting consciousness.
How can anything explain consciousness if it has been unable to explain general observations about the brain. This is the same with other consciousness theories. No consciousness theory can explain why neurons are in clusters, or how the brain switches attention, or why the same neurotransmitters are implicated in several functions.
So, why should any consciousness theory even be considered if it can explain nothing specific or observations about the brain? Or, what should be the threshold to consider something a consciousness theory? For example, how does a memory associate with another memory? Is there any consciousness theory that can postulate a mechanism within the cranium about this, before explaining consciousness?
The proximate rungs of global neuroscience research are the–electrical and chemical–signals. This impending shift, from over a century, where the basis was neurons, is because there is currently no explanation for any brain function that does not involve electrical and chemical signals.
If any consciousness theory would be validated, the first benchmark should be how it explains electrical and chemical signals for observations about the brain. Then, it is possible to postulate from there on, whatever ways consciousness might be assumed to work.
Electrical signals are ions. Chemical signals are molecules. What are the quantum processes that match the mechanism of those ions [electrical signals] and molecules [chemical signals] in the brain?
If there is quantum entanglement or superposition in those ions and molecules, then it might be possible to use that to explain several observations then extend to consciousness. However, if the theory is about quantum entanglement or superposition in neurons, then it is already a false theory.
It can be postulated that neurons are not responsible for information organization in the brain. This means that any memory of anything is not a neural representation or state. Simply, there are no neurons that represent what a chair is, or what a smell is, or what a sight is, because neurons are cells with an almost fixed structure, so they have no capacity to change, to mechanize one function and then again change for the next.
While there are clusters of neurons identified as active or responsible for functions, it is not those neurons that are mechanizing the functions, because what would be different about one cluster [of neurons] for a function from the next? Synapses [or their connections] too are not responsible, because synaptic shapes are fairly similar across, holding little differences to define the vast amount of functions possible by the brain. The dynamism for information organization belongs, conceptually, with the varying configurations of [the sets of] electrical and chemical signals.
This means that quantum computer research, mircotubules, qubits or whatever else around there has no answers, to understand how the brain, or specifically, how the human mind works out consciousness.
Experimental plans for consciousness by connecting a quantum computer to the brain are unlikely to advance anything, because even if quantum was observed, does it mean quantum is the answer? There are several neuroimaging techniques like fMRI, EEG, PET and other neuroimaging techniques. Different neuroimaging techniques measure different parameters in the brain. While some parameters correlate with functions or activities, it is not definitive that the parameters are the basis of the function. So, whatever fMRI is measuring does not mean that the brain is mechanized by that parameter. If this is already known, why would quantum be likely, given that there is no explanation for now, for major observations about how the brain works by quantum, so regional quantum [microtubules in anesthesia] or general if there is, means little to nothing to mental disorders, addictions, degenerative diseases or even consciousness.
What to measure primarily is how electrical and chemical signals interact in sets and the features of those interactions. This is where differences in information specificity [memory, emotions, feelings and regulation] and their grades [attention, awareness, subjectivity and intent] can be explored, conceptually.
Researching quantum consciousness is not neuroscience research and it is unlikely to contribute anything useful to knowledge in the brain sciences. If quantum were viable for the brain, it would have an explanation for every observed process by the electrical and chemical signals.
There is a recent report on Axios, Quantum computing stocks are the new AI stocks, stating that, “As MIT scientists describe it, traditional binary computers use electrical signals that can be either 0 or 1. Quantum computing uses subatomic particles that can be both simultaneously. It sounds like a small difference but the power is exponential. Google said last month its new quantum computing chip, code named Willow, did computations in five minutes that would take today’s supercomputers 10 septillion years. Google found a solution for a fundamental problem with error correction that quantum computing researchers have been working toward for decades. Rigetti Computing has nearly quadrupled (off a low base) since the Willow announcement, turning it into a nearly $5 billion company. Quantum Computing has more than doubled, and larger player IonQ is up more than 10%.”
