Fundamental Physics and the Mind – Is There a Connection?

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8951)


Recent advances in the field of quantum cognition (Pothos and Busemeyer 2013; Wang et al. 2013) suggest a puzzling connection between fundamental physics and the mind. Many researchers see quantum ideas and formalisms merely as useful pragmatic tools, and do not look for deeper underlying explanations for why they work. However, others are tempted to seek for an intelligible explanation for why quantum ideas work to model cognition. This paper first draws attention to how the physicist David Bohm already in 1951 suggested that thought and quantum processes are analogous, adding that this could be explained if some neural processes underlying thought involved non-negligible quantum effects. The paper next points out that the idea that there is a connection between fundamental physics and the mind is not unique to quantum theory, but was there already when Newtonian physics was assumed to be fundamental physics, advocated most notably by Kant. Kant emphasized the unique intelligibility of a Newtonian notion of experience, and this historical background prompts us to ask in the final part of the paper whether we can really make sense of any quantum-like experience (whether experience of the empirical phenomena in the “external world” or the “inner world” of psychological phenomena). It is proposed that intelligibility is a relative notion and that, regardless of initial difficulties, quantum approaches to cognition and consciousness are likely to provide valuable new ways of understanding the mind.


  1. Atmanspacher, H.: Quantum approaches to consciousness. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011).
  2. Atmanspacher, H., Römer, H., Walach, H.: Weak quantum theory: complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Found. Phys. 32, 379–406 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Atmanspacher, H.: At home in the quantum world. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 276–277 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, P.: The dawn of quantum biology. Nature 474, 272–274 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bermúdez, J., Cahen, A.: Nonconceptual mental content. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2012).
  6. Brook, A.: Kant and the Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruza, P.D., Kitto, K., Nelson, D., McEvoy, C.: Is there something quantum like in the human mental lexicon? J. Math. Psychol. 53, 362–377 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohm, D.: Quantum Theory. Prentice Hall, New York (1951). Republished by Dover (1989)Google Scholar
  9. Craddock, T.J.A., Friesen, D., Mane, J., Hameroff, S., Tuszynski, J.A.: The feasibility of coherent energy transfer in microtubules. J. R. Soc. Interface 11, 20140677 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gabora, L., Aerts, D.: Contextualizing concepts using a mathematical generalization of the quantum formalism. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 14, 327–358 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Jack, A., Roepstorff, A. (eds.): Trusting the Subject?: The Use of Introspective Evidence in Cognitive Science. Imprint Academic, Thorverton (2003)Google Scholar
  12. Kant, I.: Critique of Pure Reason, 2nd edn. J.M. Dent & Sons Ktd, London (1991). Originally published in German in 1787Google Scholar
  13. Ladyman, J., Ross, D.: Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pronin, E., Kugler, M.B.: Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: the introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43(4), 565–578 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pylkkänen, P.: Can quantum analogies help us to understand the process of thought? Mind Matter 12(1), 61–91 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. Pylkkänen, P.: Weak vs. strong quantum cognition. In: Liljenström, H. (ed.) Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics (IV). Springer, Dordrecht (2015)Google Scholar
  17. Pylkkö, P.: The Aconceptual Mind: Heideggerian Themes in Holistic Naturalism. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Searle, John: Minds, Brains and Programs. Behav. Brain Sci. 3(3), 417–457 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smolensky, P.: On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behav. Brain Sci. 11, 1–74 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Strawson, P.F.: The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Routledge, London (1966)Google Scholar
  21. Toulmin, S.: Philosophy of science. In: Encyclopedia Britannica (2003)Google Scholar
  22. Wang, Z., Busemeyer, J.R., Atmanspacher, H., Pothos, E.M.: The potential of using quantum theory to build models of cognition. Top. Cogn. Sci. 5, 672–688 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. von Wright, G.H.: Vetenskapen och förnuftet. Ett försök till orientering. Söderströms, Helsinki (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive Neuroscience and PhilosophyUniversity of SkövdeSkövdeSweden
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art StudiesThe Finnish Center of Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (TINT), University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations