Abstract
We argue in this chapter that complementarity is a feature governing the relationship between neurophysiological aspects and phenomenological aspects of our mind. Hence a formal framework that is derived from quantum theory is applicable, generalized or weak quantum theory. This is a formal axiomatic framework that relaxes some of the requirements of quantum theory proper. Thereby it becomes relevant to more diverse kinds of systems, for instance to our mind. Basic elements of quantum theory are retained, such as the notion of observables, measurement, system, state of a system, and most importantly the handling of complementary or incompatible observables, such as physical and mental aspects of a human being. Allowing for complementary observables, however, also introduces by formal necessity an aspect peculiar to quantum theory, entanglement. We introduce the framework briefly and discuss how it might be useful for consciousness studies. We first show that complementarity has to be used to describe mental and physical states of the human mind. We show that the neuroreductive credo is not consistent with the analysis resulting from generalised quantum theory and that complementarity is an irreconcilable feature of our conscious existence. Hence generalised entanglement also becomes a notion that needs to be taken into account.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the special case that a person registers his or her own neurophysiological data, there is also the possibility to “internalise” these data. We shall not elaborate on this situation, which is largely analogous to the more important situation described previously.
References
Atmanspacher, H. (2006). Quantum approaches to consciousness. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab.
Atmanspacher, H., Römer, H., & Walach, H. (2002). Weak quantum theory: Complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Foundations of Physics, 32, 379–406.
Atmanspacher, H., Filk, T., & Römer, H. (2004). Quantum Zeno features of bistable perception. Biological Cybernetics, 90, 33–40.
Atmanspacher, H., Filk, T., & Römer, H. (2006). Weak quantum theory: Formal framework and selected applications. In A. Khrennikov (Ed.), Quantum theory: Reconsiderations of foundations – American Institute of Physics, conference proceedings. New York: Melville.
Atmanspacher, H., Bach, M., Filk, T., Kornmeier, J., & Römer, H. (2008). Cognitive time scales in a Necker-Zeno-model for bistable perception. The Open Cybernetics and Systems Journal, 2, 234–251.
Beck, F. (2001). Quantum brain dynamics and consciousness. In P. Van Looke (Ed.), The physical nature of consciousness (pp. 83–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Beck, F., & Eccles, J.C. (1992). Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 89, 111357–111361.
beim Graben, P., & Atmanspacher, H. (2006). Complementarity in classical dynamical systems. Foundations of Physics, 36(2), 291–306.
Filk, T., & Römer, H. (2011). Generalized quantum theory: Overview and latest developments. Axiomathes, 21, 211–220.
Hagan, S., Hameroff, S. R., & Tuszynski, J.A. (2002). Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence and biological feasibility. Physical Review E, 65, 61901-1–61901-11.
Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (1996). Conscious events as orchestrated space-time selections. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(1), 36–53.
Hepp, K. (1999). Toward the demolition of a computational quantum brain. In P. Blanchard & A. Jadczyk (Eds.), Quantum future from Volta and Como to the present and beyond (pp. 92–104). Berlin: Springer.
Kochen, S., & Specker, E. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.
Lucadou, Wv, Römer, H., & Walach, H. (2007). Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations in generalized quantum theory. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14, 50–74.
Nielsen, M.A., & Chuang, I.L. (2000). Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Römer, H. (2004). Weak quantum theory and the emergence of time. Mind and Matter, 2(2), 105–125.
Römer, H. (2006a). Complementarity of substance and process. Mind and Matter, 4, 69–89.
Römer, H. (2006b). Substanz, Veränderung und Komplementarität. Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 113, 118–136.
Römer, H. (2011). Verschränkung. In M. Knaup, T. Müller & P. Spät (Eds.), Post-Physikalismus (pp. 87–121). Freiburg: Karl Alber.
Walach, H. (2003). Entanglement model of homeopathy as an example of generalizsed entanglement predicted by weak quantum theory. Forschende Komplementärmedizin und Klassische Naturheilkunde, 10, 192–200.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Römer, H., Walach, H. (2011). Complementarity of Phenomenal and Physiological Observables: A Primer on Generalised Quantum Theory and Its Scope for Neuroscience and Consciousness Studies. In: Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Jonas, W. (eds) Neuroscience, Consciousness and Spirituality. Studies in Neuroscience, Consciousness and Spirituality, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2079-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2079-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2078-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2079-4
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)