“Homo Machina (Machine Man),” by Fritz Kahn (Redbubble, 2025)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. The Present Limits of AI: Empirical Considerations
3. Philosophical Arguments Against Artificial General Intelligence
4. Robert Hanna’s Systematic Challenge to Computational Mechanism
5. Neuroscientific Evidence Against Digital Computationism
6. Leading Theories of Consciousness: A Critical Analysis of Their Limitations
7. Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
8. Conclusion
The essay below has been published in six installments; this installment, the sixth and final one, contains sections 7 and 8.
But you can also download and read or share a .pdf of the complete text of this essay, including the REFERENCES, by scrolling down to the bottom of this post and clicking on the Download tab.
7. Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness
Quantum mechanical approaches to consciousness emerged partly as responses to the perceived inadequacies of classical physicalist accounts. The deterministic, mechanistic worldview of classical physics appears to leave little room for the apparent unity, intentionality, and qualitative richness of conscious experience (Penrose, 1989). Quantum mechanics, with its inherent indeterminacy, observer effects, and non-local correlations, has thus attracted theorists seeking physical mechanisms that might account for consciousness’s distinctive features.
7.1 The Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory
The most developed quantum theory of consciousness is Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), proposed by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff (Penrose, 1994; Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Penrose and Hameroff, 2011). Orch-OR aims to solve three fundamental problems: (i) the unity of consciousness, (ii) the binding problem, and (iii) the existence of subjective experience.
Penrose discusses “objective reduction” (OR), the idea that quantum state reduction occurs through both measurement and gravitational effects. Here, quantum superpositions at the Planck scale, reach a critical threshold, producing the reduction (Penrose, 1996). This process, Penrose argues, is non-algorithmic and could account for the apparent non-computability of mathematical insight and conscious understanding, he supposes (Penrose, 1989, 1994).
Hameroff locates the quantum processes within microtubules. Microtubules are protein structures forming the cytoskeleton of neurons. He proposes that quantum coherence can be maintained within these structures at biological temperatures for sufficient durations to influence neural computation (Hameroff, 1998a, 1998b). The theory suggests that consciousness arises when quantum states in microtubules undergo objective collapse in unison, leading to conscious experience at roughly 40Hz. This is in step with observed neural pulses, and conscious awareness (Penrose and Hameroff, 2011).
7.2 Alternative Quantum Theories of Consciousness
Several other quantum approaches have emerged, each addressing different aspects of the consciousness problem:
- Quantum Information Theory Approaches: Theorists like Henry Stapp have proposed that consciousness arises from quantum measurement processes in the brain. Wavefunction collapse is caused by conscious observation (Stapp, 1993, 2007). This approach attempts to resolve the measurement problem in quantum mechanics by invoking consciousness as the agent of wavefunction collapse.
- Quantum Field Theories: Giuseppe Vitiello and others have developed quantum field theoretical approaches to consciousness. These involve the idea that consciousness is a product of the quantum field fluctuations in the brain’s electromagnetic field (Vitiello, 1995; Penrose and Hameroff, 2011). These theories attempt to account for the apparent non-locality of conscious experience and memory.
- Many-Minds Interpretations: Some theorists have proposed that quantum many-worlds interpretations might explain consciousness. It is conjectured that each branch of the universal wavefunction somehow corresponds to a different aspect of consciousness (Albert and Loewer, 1988; Barrett, 1999).
7.3 The Measurement Problem and Consciousness
A central issue concerns the relationship between quantum measurement and conscious observation. The traditional Copenhagen interpretation proposes that measurement causes wavefunction collapse. However, this raises the question of what constitutes a “measurement”? Some theorists argue that consciousness is necessary for measurement (von Neumann, 1955; Wigner, 1961). Others propose that any physical interaction, regardless of conscious observation, can be a measurement (Zurek, 2003).
Decoherence and Biological Environments
A major challenge for quantum theories of consciousness involves decoherence, the rapid loss of quantum coherence due to environmental interaction (Zurek, 1991, 2003). The biological environment of the brain would act to eliminate quantum coherence in femtoseconds. This is much too quick, some propose, to impact upon neural computation (Tegmark, 2000). Proponents of quantum consciousness theories must therefore propose mechanisms for maintaining coherence or demonstrate that relevant quantum effects can persist despite decoherence.
The Binding Problem and Quantum Holism
Quantum mechanical non-locality and entanglement have been proposed as solutions to the binding problem, explaining how spatially distributed neural processes give rise to unified conscious experiences (Stapp, 1993; Penrose and Hameroff, 2011). Quantum entanglement could theoretically allow instantaneous correlations between distant brain regions, potentially explaining the apparent unity of consciousness despite its distributed neural substrate.
Neurobiological Evidence
The empirical support for quantum effects in neural processes remains highly contested. While some studies have suggested quantum effects in biological systems, such as quantum coherence in photosynthesis (Engel et al., 2007) and avian navigation (Ritz et al., 2000), the evidence for quantum processes in neural microtubules specifically remains limited (McKemmish et al., 2009).
Quantum effects in biological environments have been observed to be operating (Lambert et al., 2013; O’Reilly and Olaya-Castro, 2014), so quantum coherence may occur in biological systems. However, the logical jump from such quantum effects to quantum computation producing consciousness in microtubules, has not been demonstrated.
Anesthetic Studies
Hameroff and others have pointed to correlations between anesthetic effects on microtubules and consciousness as evidence for Orch-OR theory (Hameroff, 1998b). Some anesthetics that cause unconsciousness also disrupt microtubule function, potentially supporting the theory’s predictions. However, critics argue that these correlations could be explained by classical mechanisms without invoking quantum processes (Georgiev, 2020).
Computational Criticisms
A fundamental criticism concerns whether quantum mechanics actually provides the computational advantages claimed by quantum consciousness theories. Critics argue that even if quantum processes occur in the brain, they may not contribute to consciousness in the ways proposed (Grush and Churchland, 1995; Litt et al., 2006). The specific computational advantages of quantum processing for generating subjective experience remain unclear.
7.4 The Hard Problem and Explanatory Adequacy
A crucial question concerns whether quantum mechanical approaches actually address the hard problem of consciousness or merely relocate it. Critics argue that invoking quantum indeterminacy or non-locality does not explain why there should be subjective experience associated with these processes any more than with classical physical processes (Chalmers, 1996). The qualitative, experiential aspects of consciousness may remain explanatorily problematic regardless of the underlying physical mechanisms.
Free Will and Quantum Indeterminacy
Some theorists have suggested that quantum indeterminacy might provide a physical basis for free will, offering an alternative to strict determinism without invoking pure randomness (Kane, 1996; Penrose, 1994). However, critics argue that random quantum events provide no better foundation for genuine agency than deterministic processes (Dennett, 1984; McKenna and Pereboom, 2016).
Emergence and Downward Causation
Quantum theories of consciousness often invoke emergence, the idea that consciousness emerges from, but is not reducible to, quantum processes. This raises complex questions about downward causation and whether emergent conscious states can influence lower-level physical processes (Kim, 1999; Clayton and Davies, 2006).
The Circularity at the Heart of Quantum Consciousness
A more fundamental problem has received insufficient scrutiny: the observer paradox inherent in quantum mechanical formalism itself. If quantum mechanics requires conscious observers to define measurement events, and consciousness allegedly emerges from quantum processes, then any quantum theory of consciousness faces a vicious explanatory circle that undermines the entire reductionist project.
This observer paradox strikes at the foundational assumptions of physicalist approaches to consciousness. Rather than consciousness emerging from complex quantum information processing, the formalism of quantum mechanics appears to presuppose consciousness as a necessary component for coherent physical description. This reversal, from consciousness as emergent to consciousness as foundational, has profound implications for our understanding of the mind-body relationship and suggests that reductive physicalism and mechanism may be fundamentally misconceived from the get-go.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, developed by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, yielded the observer paradox. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle demonstrated that measurement itself necessarily alters quantum systems. Bohr’s complementarity principle asserts that it is impossible to separate observed objects from the observing subjects (Heisenberg, 1958; Bohr, 1963). These insights led to a formalism where quantum mechanical descriptions are inherently observer-relative, rather than objectively complete.
The mathematical formalization by John von Neumann made this observer dependence explicit. In his Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1955), von Neumann demonstrated that the measurement process involves an irreducible division between the observed quantum system and the measuring apparatus. This cut can be moved arbitrarily along the measurement chain, but it cannot be erased without involving conscious observation (von Neumann, 1955: pp. 418-421).
Eugene Wigner extended this analysis in his seminal paper “Remarks on the Mind-Body Question” (1961), arguing that conscious observation is necessary for wavefunction collapse. Wigner’s argument rested on the premise that only consciousness possesses the unique property of immediate awareness that can break the chain of quantum superpositions. His famous “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment demonstrated that without conscious observation, even a macroscopic measurement apparatus remains in superposition states (Wigner, 1961, pp. 284-302).
Contemporary attempts to eliminate observer dependence face what we might term the “specification problem,” the difficulty of defining measurement events without implicitly invoking observational criteria. Decoherence theory, developed by Wojciech Zurek and others, attempts to explain apparent wavefunction collapse through environmental interaction rather than conscious observation (Zurek, 2003). However, decoherence theory must still specify what constitutes a “relevant environment” and which interactions count as “measurements,” specifications that ultimately depend on observer interests and perspectives.
Similarly, many-worlds interpretations avoid wavefunction collapse by positing universal superposition, but they face their own specification problems in defining “branches” of the universal wavefunction (Everett, 1957; DeWitt and Graham, 1973). What constitutes a distinct branch, and from whose perspective do branches appear separate? These questions cannot be answered without reference to observational criteria, reintroducing observer dependence at a fundamental level.
Even objective collapse theories like the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) model, which propose spontaneous wavefunction collapse independent of observation, must specify which physical quantities trigger collapse and at what threshold (Ghirardi et al., 1986). These specifications appear arbitrary without reference to observational relevance, suggesting that observer perspectives remain implicit even in “objective” formulations.
Quantum theories of consciousness face a fundamental bootstrap paradox. While attempting to explain consciousness through quantum mechanical processes, the quantum mechanics itself require conscious observers, according to the position. This creates a “vicious circle” in explanation: consciousness cannot be both explanans (that which explains) and explanandum (that which is explained) without logical incoherence.
The Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory exemplifies this circularity (Penrose, 1994; Hameroff and Penrose, 1996). As we pointed out above, the theory proposes that consciousness emerges from quantum computations in neural microtubules that undergo objective reduction when gravitational effects reach critical thresholds. However, the theory must invoke conscious “moments of experience” to define what constitutes a relevant quantum computation and when objective reduction creates unified conscious states. The theory thus presupposes consciousness to explain consciousness, a classic case of explanatory circularity.
Henry Stapp’s quantum interactive dualism faces similar problems (Stapp, 1993, 2007). Stapp argues that consciousness causes wavefunction collapse through quantum measurement, but his theory requires pre-existing conscious agents to make the measurements that allegedly generate consciousness. This temporal paradox, whereby consciousness causes its own emergence, violates basic principles of causal explanation.
The bootstrap paradox generates an infinite regress problem: if consciousness emerges from quantum processes that require conscious observation to be defined, then who observes the quantum processes that generate the first conscious observer? This “meta-observer regress” parallels classical problems in epistemology about the criteria for knowledge, but with ontological rather than merely epistemic implications.
Consider a specific example: if consciousness emerges from quantum coherence in neural microtubules, as Orch-OR theory suggests, then measuring this quantum coherence requires conscious observers to define what counts as coherence, how long coherence must persist, and when decoherence terminates the conscious moment. But these conscious observers must themselves emerge from prior quantum processes, which require their own conscious observers ad infinitum.
Some theorists attempt to avoid this regress by appealing to “emergent observer sufficiency,” the idea that once consciousness emerges from quantum processes, it can retroactively validate the quantum framework that produced it (Stapp, 2007). However, this temporal circularity violates basic causal principles: effects cannot precede their causes, and conscious validation cannot occur before consciousness exists.
A deeper analysis reveals that the observer paradox connects to fundamental issues about intentionality, the “aboutness” or representational character of mental states (Brentano, 1874/1995; Searle, 1983). Physical processes, as described purely in terms of quantum field interactions, particle exchanges, or electromagnetic patterns, possess no intrinsic intentionality. They do not inherently refer to or represent anything beyond their immediate causal relations.
However as Husserl noted, conscious observation is intrinsically intentional: consciousness is always consciousness of something, under some description or another, serving some aim or another (Husserl, 1913/1931; Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2012). When a physicist observes quantum interference patterns, the observation possesses intentional content: it refers to specific experimental arrangements, represents particular theoretical predictions, and serves explanatory purposes within scientific frameworks. This intentional structure cannot be reduced to the purely causal interactions described by quantum mechanics without eliminating precisely what makes observation observational rather than merely causal.
The intentionality problem shows that consciousness cannot be fully reduced to quantum mechanical processes, as because intentionality is necessary for quantum mechanics itself. Quantum mechanics describes correlations between measurement outcomes, but these correlations become physically meaningful only through conscious interpretations by observing physicists, who assign referential content to the mathematical formalism.
This analysis closely relates to the symbol grounding problem in cognitive science: how do symbolic representations acquire their semantic content (Harnad, 1990)? In quantum mechanics, mathematical symbols (ψ, |0⟩, |1⟩, etc.) must be grounded in observational procedures and measurement outcomes in order to acquire physical meaning. But observational procedures presuppose conscious agents capable of recognizing, categorizing, and interpreting measurement results.
Consider the double-slit experiment, often cited as fundamental to quantum mechanics. The experiment requires conscious observers in order to distinguish between “particle-like” and “wave-like” behavior, to recognize interference patterns as meaningful rather than random, and to connect mathematical predictions with observable outcomes. Without an observer, the double-slit setup would merely produce raw detector interactions; the talk of “wave-particle duality” or “measurement problems,” only arise once conscious agents interpret the results.
This entails that quantum mechanics, rather than explaining consciousness, may actually depend on consciousness for its coherent formulation as a physical theory. The mathematical formalism acquires physical meaning only through conscious interpretation that assigns referential content to abstract symbols.
7.5 Responses to the Observer Paradox
Physicalists have developed several strategies to eliminate or minimize observer dependence in quantum mechanics, but each faces serious limitations that preserve the fundamental paradox.
- Decoherence Theory: Wavefunction collapse is thought to occur through interaction with macroscopic “relevant environments” rather than conscious observation (Zurek, 1991, 2003). However, decoherence theory faces the specification problem: what constitutes a “relevant environment” and which interactions count as “measurements”? These specifications cannot be made without reference to observer interests and perspectives, reintroducing consciousness at the foundational level.
- Moreover, decoherence explains the appearance of collapse from an observer’s perspective but does not eliminate quantum superposition itself. The global quantum state remains in superposition; decoherence merely explains why local observers perceive definite outcomes. This preservation of observer-relativity undermines attempts to eliminate consciousness from quantum mechanical description (Schlosshauer, 2007).
- Many-Worlds Interpretations: Many-worlds theories avoid wavefunction collapse by positing that all possible measurement outcomes occur in parallel branches of universal superposition (Everett, 1957; DeWitt and Graham, 1973). This eliminates special roles for consciousness in causing collapse, but it faces severe specification problems in defining branches and explaining the appearance of definite outcomes.
- What constitutes a distinct “branch” of the universal wavefunction? How do conscious observers experience single outcomes rather than quantum superpositions of all possible experiences? These questions cannot be answered without invoking observer perspectives to define branching criteria and explain subjective experience within many-worlds frameworks (Barrett, 1999; Wallace, 2012).
- QBism and Subjective Interpretations: Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) accepts observer dependence. This involves regarding quantum states as subjective Bayesian degrees of belief, rather than objective physical properties (Fuchs, 2010; Fuchs and Schack, 2013). The approach eliminates observer paradoxes by making quantum mechanics explicitly subjective, but it undermines physicalist reductionism and mechanism by making physics depend on conscious belief states rather than objective physical processes.
- If quantum mechanics describes subjective beliefs rather than objective reality, then consciousness cannot be reduced to quantum mechanical processes without circularity. QBism preserves quantum mechanics by abandoning physicalist reductionism and mechanism, solving the observer paradox by conceding the fundamental point at issue.
- Objective Collapse Theories: Objective collapse theories attempt to eliminate observer dependence by proposing spontaneous wavefunction collapse independent of conscious observation. The Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) model suggests that quantum superpositions spontaneously collapse at random intervals, with collapse probability increasing with system size (Ghirardi et al., 1986). Continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) theories propose similar mechanisms with different mathematical details (Pearle, 1989; Bassi and Ghirardi, 2003).
However, objective collapse theories face their own specification problems. Why do certain physical quantities (position, momentum, energy) trigger collapse while others (spin, phase) do not? What determines collapse thresholds and time scales? These specifications appear arbitrary unless grounded in observational relevance, reintroducing observer dependence through the back door.
Moreover, objective collapse theories must explain why consciousness correlates so precisely with collapse events. If collapse occurs randomly and independently of consciousness, why does conscious awareness track collapse outcomes so reliably? The correlation between consciousness and collapse suggests either that consciousness influences collapse (violating the theory’s objectivity) or that consciousness emerges from collapse events (requiring explanation of how subjective experience arises from objective physical processes).
The observer paradox demonstrates a fundamental failure in bottom-up explanatory strategies that attempt to explain consciousness in terms of more basic physical processes. If the most fundamental physical theory, quantum mechanics, requires conscious observers for coherent formulation, then consciousness cannot be reduced to quantum mechanical processes without explanatory circularity.
This failure is not merely technical but conceptual. The attempt to explain consciousness through quantum mechanics commits what philosophers such as Ryle (Ryle, 1949) call a “category error,” treating consciousness as a complex arrangement of non-conscious components, while simultaneously relying on consciousness to define those components coherently (Ryle, 1949; Bennett and Hacker, 2003).
The bootstrap paradox reveals that consciousness and physical processes may be more intimately connected than physicalist reductionism and mechanism assume. Rather than consciousness emerging from complex arrangements of unconscious matter, consciousness is necessary for matter to be conceived and described as such, creating a fundamental ontological circularity. Hence, from these considerations alone, reductionist physicalism, computational theories of mind, and mechanism, are false.
8. Conclusion
We conclude that the complete package of objections to mechanism considered collectively—thereby deploying what Hanna calls the cumulative argument strategy, or what we’ve called “the shotgun approach”—strongly indicate that mechanism about the rational human mind is untenable. We have examined the major planks of the mechanistic position and each one has strong opponents. This means that the most plausible position for examining the “hard problem of consciousness” is a non-reductionist account such as Hanna’s. But we will not explore this further in this essay. In any case, we have no problem with accepting that the hard problem is unsolvable, like many other philosophical problems, where the subjective is supposed to be reduced to the objective, or the objective to the subjective (Dietrich and Hardcastle, 2005). But there is, once one rejects materialist/physicalist and reductionist prejudices, nothing especially “mysterious” about consciousness. It is something which we are introspectively directly aware of, unlike say Platonistic numbers and transfinite sets. And, non-reductive psychology, in various forms such as phenomenology and humanistic psychology, can fruitfully explore the human world, once one departs from mechanistic prejudices, fetishes, and even psychopathologies (Hanna, 2025).[i]
NOTE
[i] The authors are grateful to Robert Hanna for his inspiring body of philosophical work, especially including his detailed and robust critique of mechanism.
REFERENCES
(AAAI, 2025). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. “AAAI 2025 Presidential Panel on the Future of AI Research.” Available online at URL = <https://aaai.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AAAI-2025-PresPanel-Report-Digital-3.7.25.pdf>.
(Aaronson, 2014). Aaronson, S. “Why I Am Not an Integrated Information Theorist (or, the Unconscious Expander).” Shtetl-Optimized Blog. 12 May. Available online at URL = <https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1799>.
(Albert and Loewer, 1988). Albert, D.Z. and Loewer, B. “Interpreting the Many Worlds Interpretation.” Synthese 77, 2: 195–213.
(Baars, 1988). Baars, B.J. A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
(Bak, 1996). Bak, P. How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality. Göttingen DE: Copernicus Books.
(Barrett, 1999). Barrett, J.A. The Quantum Mechanics of Minds and Worlds. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Bassi and Ghirardi, 2003). Bassi, A. and Ghirardi, G. C. (2003). “Dynamical Reduction Models.” Physics Reports 379, 5–6: 257–426.
(Bennett and Hacker, 2003). Bennett, M. R., and Hacker, P. M. S. (2003). Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
(Block, 2019). Block, N. (2019). “What is Wrong with the No-Report Paradigm and How to Fix It.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23, 12: 1003–1013.
(Bohr, 1963). Bohr, N. (1963). Essays 1958–1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. Geneva CH: Interscience Publishers.
(Brentano, 1874/1995). Brentano, F. Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint. London: Routledge.
(Bostrom, 2014). Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Busemeyer and Bruza, 2012). Busemeyer, J.R. and Bruza, P. D. Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
(Cao et al., 2020). Cao, J., et al. “Quantum Biology Revisited.” Science Advances 6, 14. Available online at URL = <https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4888>
(Chalmers, 1995). Chalmers, D.J. “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, 3: 200–219.
(Chalmers, 1996). Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Chalmers, 2018). Chalmers, D.J. “The Meta-Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 25, 9–10: 6–61.
(Chemero, 2009). Chemero, A. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Chomsky et al., 2023). Chomsky, N., Roberts, I. and Watumull, J. “Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT.” New York Times. 8 March. Available online at URL = <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html>.
(Clark, 1997). Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Clark, 2008). Clark, A. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Clark, 2013). Clark, A. “Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36, 3: 181–204.
(Clayton and Davies, 2006). Clayton, P., and Davies, P. (eds.). The Re-Emergence of Emergence. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Coeckelbergh, 2020). Coeckelbergh, M. AI Ethics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Cotra, 2020). Cotra, A. “Forecasting Transformative AI Timelines Using Biological Anchors.” AI Impacts. Available online at URL = <https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/KrJfoZzpSDpnrv9va/draft-report-on-ai-timelines>.
(Dehaene and Changeux, 2011). Dehaene, S. and Changeux, J.P. “Experimental and Theoretical Approaches to Conscious Processing.” Neuron 70, 2: 200–227.
(Dehaene, 2014). Dehaene, S. Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. New York: Viking.
(Dennett, 1984). Dennett, D.C. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(DeWitt and Graham, 1973). DeWitt, B.S. and Graham, N. (eds.). The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
(Dietrich and Hardcastle, 2005). Dietrich, E, and Hardcastle, V.G. Sisyphus’ Boulder: Consciousness and the Limits of Knowledge. Amsterdam NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(Doerig et al., 2019). Doerig, A., et al. “The Unfolding Argument: Why IIT and Other Causal Structure Theories Cannot Explain Consciousness.” Consciousness and Cognition, 72: 49–59.
(Doerig et al., 2021). Doerig, A., et al. (2021). “Hard Criteria for Empirical Theories of Consciousness.” Cognitive Neuroscience. 12(2): 41-62.
(Dreyfus, 1972). Dreyfus, H. What Computers Can’t Do. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Dreyfus, 1992). Dreyfus, H. What Computers Still Can’t Do. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Edelman, 1987). Edelman, G.M. Neural Darwinism: The Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. New York: Basic Books.
(Edelman, 1989). Edelman, G.M. The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory of Consciousness. New York: Basic Books.
(Edelman, 1992). Edelman, G.M. Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind. New York: Basic Books.
(Edelman and Tononi, 2000). Edelman, G.M. and Tononi, G. A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination. New York: Basic Books.
(Einstein, 1954). Einstein, A. “Aphorisms for Leo Baeck.“ In A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions. New York: Three Rivers Press. Pp. 27-28.
(Engel et al., 2007). Engel, G.S., et al. “Evidence for Wavelike Energy Transfer through Quantum Coherence in Photosynthetic Systems.” Nature 446, 7137: 782–786.
(Everett, 1957). Everett III, H. (1957). “‘Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics.” Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 3: 454–462.
(Floridi, 2016). Floridi, L. The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Floridi, 2019). Floridi, L. The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Freeman, 1999). Freeman, W.J. (1999). How Brains Make Up Their Minds. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
(Freeman, 2001). Freeman, W.J. Neurodynamics: An Exploration in Mesoscopic Brain Dynamics. New York: Springer.
(Frey and Osborne, 2017). Frey, C.B. and Osborne, M. A. (2017). “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114: 254–280.
(Friston, 2010). Friston, K.J. “The Free-Energy Principle: A Unified Brain Theory?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 2: 127–138.
(Fuchs, 2010). Fuchs, C.A. “QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism.” arXiv Preprint. Available online at URL = <https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5209>.
(Fuchs and Schack, 2013). Fuchs, C.A., and Schack, R. “Quantum-Bayesian Coherence.” Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 4: 1693–1715.
(Georgiev, 2020). Georgiev, D.D. Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press.
(Ghirardi et al., 1986). Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. “Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems.” Physical Review D 34, 2: 470–491.
(Gibson, 1979). Gibson, J.J.The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin.
(Goff, 2017). Goff, P. Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Graziano, 2013). Graziano, M.S. Consciousness and the Social Brain. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Greene, 2020). Greene, B. Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe. New York: Penguin Random House.
(Grush and Churchland, 1995). Grush, R., and Churchland, P.S. “Gaps in Penrose’s Toilings.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2, 1: 10–29.
(Hameroff, 1998a). Hameroff, S. (1998). “Quantum Computation in Brain Microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff “Orch OR” Model of Consciousness.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 356(1743): 1869–1896.
(Hameroff, 1998b). Hameroff, S. (1998). Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular Consciousness and Nanotechnology. Elsevier.
(Hameroff and Penrose, 1996). Hameroff, S. and Penrose, R. “Conscious Events as Orchestrated Space-Time Selections.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 3, 1: 36–53.
(Hanna, 2020). Hanna, R. “Criticizing the Criticism: Some Reflections on Professional Academic Thought and Real Philosophy.” Against Professional Philosophy. 8 April. Available online at URL = <https://againstprofphil.org/2020/04/08/criticizing-the-criticism-some-reflections-on-professional-academic-thought-and-real-philosophy/>.
(Hanna, 2024). Hanna, R. Science for Humans: Mind, Life, The Formal-&-Natural Sciences, and A New Concept of Nature. Berlin: Springer Nature. Available online in preview HERE.
(Hanna, 2025). Hanna, R. Digital Technology for Humans: The Myth of AI, Human Dignity, and Neo-Luddism. Berlin: De Gruyter Brill. Available online in preview HERE.
(Harnad, 1990). Harnad, S. “The Symbol Grounding Problem.” Physica D 42, 1–3: 335–346.
(Harris, 2011). Harris, S. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press.
(Heidegger, 1927/1962). Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. New York: Harper and Row.
(Heisenberg, 1958). Heisenberg, W. Physics and Philosophy. New York: Harper and Row.
(Hohwy, 2013). Hohwy, J. The Predictive Mind: Consciousness, Cognition, and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Husserl, 1913/1931). Husserl, E. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Macmillan.
(Hutto and Myin, 2013). Hutto, D.D. and Myin, E. Radicalizing Enactivism: Basic Minds without Content. Boston MA: MIT Press.
(Kandel et al., 2013). Kandel, E.R., et al. “The Molecular and Systems Biology of Memory.” Cell 157, 1: 163–186.
(Kane, 1996). Kane, R. The Significance of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Karnofsky, 2021). Karnofsky, H. “Reply to Eliezer on Biological Anchors.” LessWrong. Available online at URL = <https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nNqXfnjiezYukiMJi/reply-to-eliezer-on-biological-anchors>.
(Kauffman, 1993). Kauffman, S. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Kim, 1999). Kim, J. “Making Sense of Emergence.” Philosophical Studies 95, 1–2: 3–36.
(Lake and Baroni, 2023). Lake, B. M., and Baroni, M. (2023). “Human-Like Systematic Generalization through a Meta-Learning Neural Network.” Nature, 623 : 115-121.
(Lambert et al., 2013). Lambert, N., et al. (2013). “Quantum Biology.” Nature Physics, 9(1): 10–18.
(Landgrebe and Smith, 2025). Landgrebe, J. and Smith, B. Why Machines Will Never Rule the World: Artificial Intelligence without Fear. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
(LeCun et al., 2015). LeCun, Y., et al. “Deep Learning.” Nature 521, 7553: 436–444.
(Levine, 1983). Levine, J. “Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64: 354–361.
(Lewin, 1980). Lewin, R. “Is Your Brain Really Necessary?” Science 210, 4475: 1232–1234.
(Litt et al., 2006). Litt, A., et al. “Is the Brain a Quantum Computer?” Cognitive Science 30, 3: 593–603.
(Lloyd, 2000). Lloyd, S. “Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation.” Nature 406: 1047–1054.
(Lucas, 1961). Lucas, J.R. “Minds, Machines and Gödel.” Philosophy 36, 137: 112–127.
(Lycan, 1996). Lycan, W.G. Consciousness and Experience. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Marcus and Davis, 2019). Marcus, G. and Davis, E. Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust. 2nd edn., New York : Random House.
(Maturana and Varela, 1987). Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boulder, CO: Shambhala.
(McCarthy, 1986). McCarthy, J. “Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common-Sense Knowledge.” Artificial Intelligence 28, 1: 89–116.
(McCarthy and Hayes, 1969). McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P.J. “Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence.” Machine Intelligence, Vol. 4. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press. Pp. 463-502.
(McGinn, 2012). McGinn, C. (2012). “All Machine and No Ghost?” New Statesman. Available online at URL = <https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2012/02/consciousness-mind-brain>.
(McKemmish et al., 2009). McKemmish, L.K., et al. “Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective-Reduction Proposal for Human Consciousness is Not Biologically Feasible.” Physical Review E 80, 2. Available online at URL = <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912>.
(McKenna and Pereboom, 2016). McKenna, M. and Pereboom, D. Free Will: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge.
(Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2012). Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge.
(Mitchell, 2009). Mitchell, M. Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Mitchell, 2023). Mitchell, M. Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans 2nd edn., New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
(Nagel, 1974). Nagel, T. “What is it Like to Be a Bat?” Philosophical Review 83, 4: 435–450.
(Nagel, 1986). Nagel, T. The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Nielsen and Chuang, 2010). Nielsen, M.A., and Chuang, I.L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
(Noë, 2004). Noë, A. Action in Perception. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(O’Neil, 2016). O’Neil, C. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown.
(O’Reilly and Olaya-Castro, 2014). O’Reilly, E.J. and Olaya-Castro, A. “Non-Classicality of the Molecular Vibrations Assisting Exciton Energy Transfer at Room Temperature.” Nature Communications 5: 3012. Available online at URL = <https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4012>.
(Ozimek, 2025). Ozimek, T. “‘Godfather of AI’ Warns Superintelligent Machines Could Replace Humanity.” The Epoch Times. Available online HERE.
(Pearle, 1989). Pearle, P. “Combining Stochastic Dynamical State-Vector Reduction with Spontaneous Localization.” Physical Review A 39, 5: 2277–2289.
(Penrose, 1989). Penrose, R. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Penrose, 1994). Penrose, R. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Penrose, 1996). Penrose, R. “On Gravity’s Role in Quantum State Reduction.” General Relativity and Gravitation 28, 5: 581–600.
(Penrose and Hameroff, 2011). Penrose, R., and Hameroff, S. “Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory.” Journal of Cosmology 14: 1–17.
(Perkins, 2025). Perkins, M. “How Much of Your Brain Do You Need to Survive?” Live Science. 31 March. Available online at URL = <https://livescience.com/health/neuroscience/how-much-of-your-brain-do-you-need-to-survive>.
(Piccinini, 2007). Piccinini, G. “Computational Modelling vs. Computational Explanations: Is Everything a Turing Machine, and Does It Matter to the Philosophy of Mind?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85, 1: 93–115.
Pothos, E.M. and Busemeyer, J.R.“Can Quantum Probability Provide a New Direction for Cognitive Modeling?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36, 3: 255–274.
(Putnam, 1960). Putnam, H. “Minds and Machines.” In S. Hook (ed.), Dimensions of Mind. New York: New York Univ. Press. Pp. 138-164
(Pylyshyn, 1984). Pylyshyn, Z.W. Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Raichle, 2015). Raichle, M.E. “The Brain’s Default Mode Network.” Annual Review of Neuroscience 38: 433–447.
(Redbubble, 2025). Kahn, F. “Homo Machina (Human Machine).” Redbubble. Available online at URL = <https://www.redbubble.com/shop/fritz+kahn+photographic%20prints>.
(Reiter, 1980). Reiter, R. “A Logic for Default Reasoning.” Artificial Intelligence 13, 1–2: 81–132.
(Ritz et al., 2000). Ritz, T. et al. “A Model for Photoreceptor-Based Magnetoreception in Birds.” Biophysical Journal 78, 2: 707–718.
(Rosenthal, 2005). Rosenthal, D. M. Consciousness and Mind. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Ryle, 1949). Ryle, G. The Concept of Mind. Chicago IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.
(Sapolsky, 2023). Sapolsky, R.M. Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. New York: Penguin.
(Schlosshauer, 2007). Schlosshauer, M. Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Cham: Springer.
(Scott, 2018). Scott, A.J. “Grand Illusions and Existential Angst.” Skeptical Inquirer 42, 6: 51–55.
(Searle, 1980). Searle, J. R. “Minds, Brains, and Programs.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 3: 417–424.
(Searle, 1983). Searle, J.R. Intentionality. Cambridge University Press.
(Searle, 1992). Searle, J.R. The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Seth, 2014). Seth, A.K. “A Predictive Processing Theory of Sensorimotor Contingencies: Explaining the Puzzle of Perceptual Presence and Its Absence in Synesthesia.” Cognitive Neuroscience 5, 2: 97–118.
(Shanahan, 1997). Shanahan, M. Solving the Frame Problem: A Mathematical Investigation of the Common Sense Law of Inertia. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Shapiro, 2003). Shapiro, S. “Mechanism, Truth, and Penrose’s New Argument” Journal of Philosophical Logic 32, 1: 19–42.
(Shojaee, A., et al. 2025). Shojaee, A. et al. “The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models Via the Lens of Problem Complexity.” Apple Machine Learning Research. Available online at URL = <https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/illusion-of-thinking>.
(Sonik and Colarossi, 2020). Sonik, D. and Colarossi, J. Becoming Artificial: A Philosophical Exploration into Artificial Intelligence and What It Means to Be Human. Luton UK: Andrews UK Limited.
(Stapp, 1993). Stapp, H.P. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics. Cham: Springer-Verlag.
(Stall, 2007). Stapp, H. . Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer. Cham: Springer.
(Stiefel and Coggan, 2022). Stiefel, K. and Coggan, J. “A Hard Energy Use Limit of Artificial Superintelligence.” TechRxiv Preprint. Available online at URL = <https://www.techrxiv.org/articles/preprint/A_Hard_Energy_Use_Limit_of_Artificial_Superintelligence/21588612>.
(Tegmark, 2000). Tegmark, M. “Importance of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Processes.” Physical Review E 6, 14: 4194–4206.
(Thelen and Smith, 1994). Thelen, E. and Smith, L.B. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Thompson et el., 2020). Thompson, S., et al. “The Computational Limits of Deep Learning.” arXiv Preprint. 10 July. Available online at URL = <https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.05558>.
(Tononi, 1999). Tononi, G. “Consciousness and Complexity.” Science 282, 5395: 1846–1851.
(Tononi, 2015). Tononi, G. “Integrated Information Theory.” Scholarpedia 10, 1: 4164.
(Tononi and Koch, 2015). Tononi, G. and Koch, C. “Consciousness: Here, There and Everywhere?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370, 1668. Available online at URL = <https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2014.0167>.
(Turner, 2025). Turner, B. “Current AI Models a ‘Dead End’ for Human-Level Intelligence, Scientists Agree.” Live Science. Available online at URL = <https://www.yahoo.com/news/current-ai-models-dead-end-135020529.html>.
(Van Gelder, 1995). Van Gelder, T. “What Might Cognition Be, if Not Computation?” Journal of Philosophy 92, 7: 345–381.
(Varela et al., 1991). Varela, F.J. et al. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
(Vitiello, 1995). Vitiello, G. “Dissipation and Memory Capacity in the Quantum Brain Model.” International Journal of Modern Physics B 9, 8: 973–989.
(von Neumann, 1955). von Neumann, J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
(Wallace, 2012). Wallace, D. The Emergent Multiverse. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Wheeler, 1989). Wheeler, J. A. “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links.” In W. Zurek (ed.), Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information. Redwood City CA: Addison-Wesley. Pp. 3-28.
(Wigner, 1961). Wigner, E. P. “Remarks on the Mind-Body Question.” In I.J. Good (ed.), The Scientist Speculates. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann. Pp. 284-302.
(Wolfram, 2002). Wolfram, S. A New Kind of Science. Champaign IL: Wolfram Media.
(Wu and Boas, 2025). Wu, J. and Bosa, D. “The AI-Boom’s Multi-Economy System: Billion-Dollar Blind Spot: Reasoning Models Hitting a Wall.” 26 June. Available online at URL = <https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/26/ai-reasoning-models-problem.html>.
(Zeilinger, 1999). Zeilinger, A. Experiment and the Foundations of Quantum Physics. Singapore: World Scientific.
(Zurek, 1991). Zurek, W. H. “Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical.” Physics Today 44, 10: 36–44.
(Zurek, 2003). Zurek, W. H. “Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quantum Origins of the Classical.” Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 3: 715–775.
Against Professional Philosophy is a sub-project of the online mega-project Philosophy Without Borders, which is home-based on Patreon here.
Please consider becoming a patron!
