Abstract
How does the brain generate consciousness? The present paper is an attempt to answer this question from the perspective of the QBIT theory. In sum, the theory argues that the brain has a prior belief (P) about the stimulus that has caused a sensory representation (R) to be created in the brain. When the conditional entropy of P given R becomes less than zero, the brain becomes more than certain about (i.e. becomes conscious of) the stimulus. Conditional entropy can become negative (and thus the brain can become more than certain) only if the brain uses entangled quantum information in its computations. The QBIT theory suggests that, at the most fundamental level, consciousness is nothing but a special kind of entangled information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
This paper has no associated data.
Code Availability
Not Applicable.
References
Adami, C. (2002). What is complexity? BioEssays, 24:1085–1094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.10192
Adami, C. (2016). What is information? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374:20150230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0230
Aitken, F., Turner, G., & Kok, P. (2020). Prior expectations of Motion Direction modulate early sensory Processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 40, 6389–6397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0537-20.2020.
Averbeck, B. B., & LathamPE, Pouget, A. (2006). Neural correlations, population coding and computation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 358–366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1888.
Banks, W. P. (1996). How Much Work Can a Quale Do? Consciousness and Cognition, 5: 368–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1996.0023
Beshkar, M. (2018). A thermodynamic approach to the problem of consciousness. Medical Hypotheses, 113, 15–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2018.02.003.
Beshkar, M. (2020). The QBIT theory of consciousness. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 752–770. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09528-1.
Beshkar, M. (2021). The QBIT theory of consciousness. In P. Dennison (Ed.), Perspectives on consciousness (pp. 99–149). New York: Nova Science.
Beshkar, M. (2022). The QBIT theory of consciousness: Entropy and qualia. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09684-6.
Brenner, N., Strong, S. P., Koberle, R., de Bialek, W., & Ruyter van Steveninck RR. (2000). Synergy in a neural code. Neural Computation, 12, 1531–1552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/089976600300015259.
Cai, J., Popescu, S., & Briegel, H. J. (2010). Dynamic entanglement in oscillating molecules and potential biological implications. Physical Review E, 82, 021921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.021921.
Cerf, N. J., & Adami, C. (1997). Negative Entropy and Information in Quantum mechanics. Physical Review Letters, 79, 5194–5197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.5194.
Dehaene, S., Changeux, J. P., Naccache, L., Sackur, J., & Sergent, C. (2006). Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 204–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.007.
Dehaene, S., Lau, H., & Kouider, S. (2017). What is consciousness, and could machines have it? Science, 358, 486–492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8871.
de Lange, F. P., Heilbron, M., & Kok, P. (2018). How Do Expectations Shape Perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22:764–779. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.06.002
del Rio, L., Åberg, J., Renner, R., Dahlsten, O., & Vedral, V. (2011). The thermodynamic meaning of negative entropy. Nature, 474, 61–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10123.
Dorner, R., & Vedral, V. (2013). Correlations in quantum physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 27, 1345017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979213450173.
Duwell, A. (2003). Quantum information does not exist. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34:479–499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-2198(03)00041-8
Gauger, E. M., Rieper, E., Morton, J. J. L., Benjamin, S. C., & Vedral, V. (2011). Sustained Quantum Coherence and Entanglement in the avian compass. Physical Review Letters, 106, 040503. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.040503.
Gorlin, S., Meng, M., Sharma, J., Sugihara, H., Sur, M., & Sinha, P. (2012). Imaging prior information in the brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109: 7935–7940. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111224109
Griffith, V., & Koch, C. (2014). Quantifying synergistic mutual information. In M. Prokopenko (Ed.), Guided Self-Organization: Inception (pp. 159–190). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53734-9_6.
Horodecki, M., Oppenheim, J., & Winter, A. (2005). Partial quantum information. Nature, 436, 673–676. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03909.
Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., & Horodecki, K. (2009). Quantum entanglement. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 865–942. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865.
Hayden, P. (2005). Putting certainty in the bank. Nature, 436, 633–635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/436633a.
Hayden, P. (2011). Entanglement as elbow grease. Nature, 474, 41–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/474041a.
Kok, P., Brouwer, G. J., van Gerven, M. A. J., & de Lange, F. P. (2013). Prior Expectations Bias sensory representations in visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 16275–16284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0742-13.2013.
Kok, P., Mostert, P., & de Lange, F. P. (2017). Prior expectations induce prestimulus sensory templates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114: 10473–10478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705652114
Lewis-Swan, R. J., Safavi-Naini, A., Kaufman, A. M., & Rey, A. M. (2019). Dynamics of quantum information. Nature Reviews Physics, 1, 627–634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-019-0090-y.
Marletto, C., Coles, D. M., Farrow, T., & Vedral, V. (2018). Entanglement between living bacteria and quantized light witnessed by Rabi splitting. Journal of Physics Communications, 2, 101001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/2399-6528/aae224.
Montani, F., Kohn, A., Smith, M. A., & Schultz, S. R. (2007). The role of correlations in direction and contrast Coding in the primary visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 2338–2348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3417-06.2007.
Moret-Bonillo, V. (2017). Adventures in Computer Science: From Classical Bits to Quantum Bits. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64807-1
Nigam, S., Pojoga, S., & Dragoi, V. (2019). Synergistic coding of Visual Information in Columnar Networks. Neuron, 104, 402–411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.07.006.
Pauls, J. A., Zhang, Y., Berman, G. P., & Kais, S. (2013). Quantum coherence and entanglement in the avian compass. Physical Review E, 87, 062704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.062704.
Plenio, M. B., & Vitelli, V. (2001). The physics of forgetting: Landauer’s erasure principle and information theory. Contemporary Physics, 42, 25–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00107510010018916.
Schneidman, E., Bialek, W., & Berry, I. I. M. J. (2003). Synergy, redundancy, and Independence in Population Codes. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 11539–11553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-37-11539.2003.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x.
Summerfield, C., & Koechlin, E. (2008). A neural representation of prior information during perceptual inference. Neuron, 59, 336–347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.05.021.
Swingle, B. (2018). Spacetime from Entanglement. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 9, 345–358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-033117-054219.
Thomas, R. A., Parniak, M., Østfeldt, C., Møller, C. B., Bærentsen, C., Tsaturyan, Y., Schliesser, A., Appel, J., Zeuthen , E., & Polzik, E. S. (2021). Entanglement between distant macroscopic mechanical and spin systems. Nature Physics, 17, 228–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-1031-5.
Qi, X. L. (2018). Does gravity come from quantum information? Nature Physics, 14, 984–987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0297-3.
Vedral, V. (2004). High-temperature macroscopic entanglement. New Journal of Physics, 6, 102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/102.
Vedral, V. (2006). Introduction to Quantum Information Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vedral, V. (2007). Quantumness without quantumness: entanglement as classical correlations in higher dimensions. Journal of Modern Optics, 54, 2185–2192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500340701266922.
Vedral, V. (2008). Quantifying entanglement in macroscopic systems. Nature, 453, 1004–1007. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07124.
Vedral, V. (2011). Living in a quantum world. Scientific American, 304, 38–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0611-38.
Vedral, V. (2012). Moving Beyond Trust in Quantum Computing. Science, 335, 294–295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216922.
Vedral, V. (2014). Quantum entanglement. Nature Physics, 10, 256–258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2904.
Wen, X. G. (2019). Choreographed entanglement dances: topological states of quantum matter. Science, 363, eaal3099. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal3099.
Wheeler, J. A. (1990). Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology (PP. 354–368). Tokyo: Physical Society of Japan.
Wootters, W. K. (1998). Quantum entanglement as a quantifiable resource. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 356, 1717–1731. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1998.0244.
Zeng, B., Chen, X., Zhou, D. L., & Wen, X. G. (2019). Quantum Information meets Quantum Matter. New York: Springer.
Zhang, Y., Berman, G. P., & Kais, S. (2014). Sensitivity and entanglement in the avian chemical compass. Physical Review E, 90, 042707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.042707.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.B. wrote the paper and is the only author of this paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
None.
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
Does not apply since no data from participants were collected.
Consent for Publication
The author consents to the publication of this manuscript.
Preprint
A preprint version of this manuscript is available at the following address: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4127837.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Beshkar, M. The QBIT Theory: Consciousness from Entangled Qubits. Integr. psych. behav. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09745-w
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09745-w