If the brain is necessary to have a vision

stevevw said:

The idea of a mind is not reducible to the physical and I guess thats why its regarded as beyond the physical.

Click to expand...

Other people's "idea of a mind" may vary.

stevevw said:

And you are making false representations of what I said. I never said that Nature is promoting mystical stuff. Thats your version. I said that mainstream journals like Nature have become open to publishing on ideas about consciousness beyond brain.

Click to expand...

What a load of rubbish I used the term metaphysical not mythical, it is you which is misrepresenting me.

stevevw said:

There are legitimate scientific theories on consciousness beyond brain. Two examples published in mainstream journals are Integrated Information theory and Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT).

These both posit consciousness and information which creates consciousness beyond the brain. In the case of IIT all things have some form of consciousness based on the level of Information and Integration. Which is more or less similar to Panpsychism and other Mind as fundemental theories.

Click to expand...

If IIT has such broad support then why does a Nature link in my previous post dismiss IIT as pseudoscience?

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) has an important clue, it is neuronal derived from the word neuron which is one of the building blocks of brain matter. The theory clearly states consciousness stems from brain functions and not from beyond the brain.

As is so typical you either have zero comprehension of your sources or deliberately misrepresent them.

My post is about the meta conversation. The parts of Steve's post about the actual topic have been removed to avoid confusion.

stevevw said:

Lol. Are you saying you don't believe in Gomer. Whatever Gomer says is true, I tell you.

I wasn't. I was making a legitmate observation. You made a truth claim about my link. I asked where was the peer reviewed support or stats that you demanded of me. I laughed because I find it amusing that I am pointing out the double standards.

Click to expand...

Your link wasn't about non-brain mind studies it was about paranormal phenomena. My request has always been about scientific studies of non-material or non-brain mind/consciousness. For claims regarding humans that could be in neurobiology, psychology, etc. For claims about consciousness being some sort of fundamental property or emergent generally from QM, then we need to see how these ideas are popular or growing in physics. Studies of NDEs, past-life experiences, etc. don't cut the mustard, so bibliographic studies of reports of such are not what I have been looking for. (I have said this man times already.)

stevevw said:

Lol now your using popularity. Yet there were objections my logic was based on popularity. Please be consistent.

Its not just about Pyschics but a wide range of phenomena. So you are misrepresenting the papers. Second there is valid evidence on the Pyschic phenomena. So this is once again tarring good science as nonsense.

Click to expand...

LOL. Valid evidence of pyschic phenomena. Are you serious? LOL

stevevw said:

[content about a specific physics paper removed for discussion ELSEWHERE]

Well known by whom lol. This is what I mean. We have a growing data base of testimony of people who sware the truth. Whose lives are changed. But skeptics have to force them to be deluded or imagining things to be right on this. Its always the way. Peoples testimonies and the evidence is dismissed as not real.

How can you say to someone that their sincere testimony is not real when they tell you it was definitely real and they know that they are not dreaming or deluded. What then. You just double down and say theres no evidence and their deluded.

Click to expand...

Well known by people with half a brain. (And by their nature the number of testimonies of people who claim to have experienced something that does not exist is always growing whether it is true or not since the "testimonies" don't cease to exist.)

stevevw said:

I don't think there were any bad sources. Thats your misrepresentation.

Click to expand...

I already explained why.

stevevw said:

If you actually look at them the ones that were not peer review they either had a link to peer review or stated the same idea as what was proposed in peer reviewed science. So in fact this is good science as we have many independent articles all converging on the same idea. All coming to the same findings.

Click to expand...

Don't call a non-peer reviewed source a peer-reviewed source. If you are making a claim based on the sources within your source, cite those, not the summary article.

stevevw said:

Your changing the goal posts. I said the thread opens the door for philosophy and alternative metaphysics because it asks the question about 'Vision beyond the physical brain'.

Proving there is vision or not beyond brain does not change the fact that this thread naturally leads to philosopy and the debate about proving such. We are doing it right now in discussing whether its possible lol.

Click to expand...

The thread is still in the science section, not the philosophy section. Poltics, theology, current events, fellowship, arts and crafts, etc. are also off topic here.

stevevw said:

Well there you go I learnt something new. I assumed that it was about not just belief in God but belief in supernaturalism. So why disbelief in God if its not about supernaturalism.

Click to expand...

It's about not believing in any creator god, or something like that. There are plenty of people who don't believe in a god (like yours) but do believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, reincarnation, psychic powers, ghosts, an afterlife, ESP, telekinesis, etc. I personally dropped all of the supernatural stuff before I dropped God.

stevevw said:

Belief is about believing something without the evidence. Is that atheism. A belief that requires physical evidence. I am not sure what the basis for atheism is.

Click to expand...

"Atheism" (and I don't like the "ism" ending since it isn't a practice or dogma) is just not believing. If you don't think there is evidence for a god, then you don't believe it. I don't think there is evidence for your god, so I don't believe in it.

stevevw said:

But what about in the lunch room or private time. I would imagine this may come up sometimes. I know in my work its not always conducive to talk religion.

Click to expand...

Discuss religion, no, but I have colleagues I have worked with for 20 years and I know what their religions are and they know that I have none. We certainly don't discuss theology, proof for/against god(s), scripture, or any of that stuff even within ourselves.

Those things don't come up in normal, polite conversation. The only place I have ever discussed religion or faith is with people I know before hand to part of the religion: family and members of my (then) church. That is it. None of my roommates in college even knew I went to church and we shared living space.

stevevw said:

I think from memory the Phil paper survey showed a high support for materialism and atheism.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is why I had at least marginal interest in the surveys of professional philosophers. Since they aren't all hard bitten scientists and can work through any possibility without the restrictions of physical reality, they'd be the most likely to support these notions, and -- well -- they don't. Isn't it weird how the people who are most likely to know the philosophical arguments for the existence of a god don't? Hmmm.

stevevw said:

But if this is evidence for say showing that these alternative ideas are not just psuedoscience but are being taken serious. Does not these kinds of analysis help support that and be important evidence.

It seems that this is dismissing important evidence and the very thing I am talking about where sometimes the evidence is dismissed as a priori due to a belief rather than the science. How can anyone present evidence if its dismissed.

I would imagine if there was analysis for NDE or Psychic research you would also dismiss that.

I thought I had already done this. Does not peer review papers count. I must have linked at least 10 papers or articles all saying that these ideas are increasing. The longitude research shows they are increasing. These ideas are making featured articles in all the top journals like Nature.

Click to expand...

The thing about that bibliographic survey is that it covers all sorts of things that are not credible. For NDEs it is *hard* to build a proper controlled study. It is relatively *easy* to design a bad study with poor controls that results in a "positive" outcome. Many of the others are just case studies which are utterly useless.

stevevw said:

It is a fact that even 10 years ago this would not have happened. That in the everday sense of the meaning is an increase. How about you now counter this with some peer review and support that shows it has not increased. Instead of knocking down everything I link.

I mean not just in your field but across all fields associated with the study of consciousness.

Click to expand...

And you've not provided anything but "colloquial" impressions from friendly news articles.

BCP1928 said:

Other people's "idea of a mind" may vary.

Click to expand...

Yes and I am not saying that anyones idea of what the Mind represents should be excluded. I think all possibilities should be considered. Especially when you say that peoples ideas may vary. It seems subjective and not an objective or physical thing that we should be placing stipulations on peoples beliefs.

sjastro said:

What a load of rubbish I used the term metaphysical not mythical, it is you which is misrepresenting me.

Click to expand...

Lol I thought it said mystical. Must have been the word bogus before metaphysics that threw me off. Either way bogus or mythical I did not say this. You are misrepresenting what I said. Why on earth would I claim that Nature is promoting bogus ideas.

sjastro said:

If IIT has such broad support

Click to expand...

I never said IIT had broad support. I said it has become accepted in mainstream journals like Nature. When even 10 years ago this would not be the case.

Here is a paper on IIT in Nature that has been cited over 2,000 times. If its psuedoscience then why is it even published and cited by Nature.

sjastro said:

then why does a Nature link in my previous post dismiss IIT as pseudoscience?

Click to expand...

I don't know. I would imagine there are papers supporting or dismissing it. But ideas like this are being published all the time and its increasing. This is a fact and I provided the longitude study and other articles.

Why is it so hard to admit that people have become more open to such ideas. I think there was some survey done which showed that the vast majority of people believe in the soul and afterlife. Why is it such a controversial thing. You can't say the majority of people are engaging in Woo.

sjastro said:

What makes a theory of consciousness unscientific? - Nature Neuroscience

Theories of consciousness have a long and controversial history. One well-known proposal — integrated information theory — has recently been labeled as ‘pseudoscience’, which has caused a heated open debate. Here we discuss the case and argue that the theory is indeed unscientific because its...

www.nature.com

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT) has an important clue, it is neuronal derived from the word neuron which is one of the building blocks of brain matter. The theory clearly states consciousness stems from brain functions and not from beyond the brain.

As is so typical you either have zero comprehension of your sources or deliberately misrepresent them.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. Ideas like GNWT appeal to the best of both worlds. Its using neural connectivity but its also proposing that there is some sort of consciousness that can be sent out into the world so that other conscious humans can tap into the same consciousness. Like it has a global influence.

The GNW proposes that, in the conscious state, a non-linear network ignition associated with recurrent processing amplifies and sustains a neural representation, allowing the corresponding information to be globally accessed by local processors.

More or less like telepathy lol.

Hans Blaster said:

My post is about the meta conversation. The parts of Steve's post about the actual topic have been removed to avoid confusion.

Your link wasn't about non-brain mind studies it was about paranormal phenomena. My request has always been about scientific studies of non-material or non-brain mind/consciousness. For claims regarding humans that could be in neurobiology, psychology, etc. For claims about consciousness being some sort of fundamental property or emergent generally from QM, then we need to see how these ideas are popular or growing in physics. Studies of NDEs, past-life experiences, etc. don't cut the mustard, so bibliographic studies of reports of such are not what I have been looking for. (I have said this man times already.)

Click to expand...

But as I keep saying its not just about what your looking for. Otherwise you cut everyone else out of this thread who disagrees that this topic should only be determined by one disiciple of science being physics.

But lets look at what you want for a bit. I don't mind. Lets start with "consciousness being some sort of fundamental property or emergent generally from QM. We can come back to the others.

The first thing to say would be. Is not consciousness as fundemental one of the interpretations of QM. At least as far as several pioneers and current physicists like Wheeler, Wigner and Stapp.

Don't most of the ideas such as Quantum Bayesianism (QBism), Panpsychism, Information theories like Wheelers (it from bit) and the Participatory Universe and other variations on Quantum Field Consciousness come from this interpretation.

Should I bother linking support as there are also plenty of papers on these. Or are they all Woo lol.

stevevw said:

I never said IIT had broad support. I said it has become accepted in mainstream journals like Nature. When even 10 years ago this would not be the case.

Here is a paper on IIT in Nature that has been cited over 2,000 times. If its psuedoscience then why is it even published and cited by Nature.

Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate - Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Uncovering the neural basis of consciousness is a major challenge to neuroscience. In this Perspective, Tononi and colleagues describe the integrated information theory of consciousness and how it might be used to answer outstanding questions about the nature of consciousness.

www.nature.com

Click to expand...

This is an opinion piece, Steve. Please examine your links before you post them. This part should have given it away:

"

• Opinion
• Published: 26 May 2016

"

stevevw said:

But as I keep saying its not just about what your looking for. Otherwise you cut everyone else out of this thread who disagrees that this topic should only be determined by one disiciple of science being physics.

Click to expand...

That's because I want to discuss one topic/claim properly rather than to discuss all of them at once like you do.

stevevw said:

But lets look at what you want for a bit. I don't mind. Lets start with "consciousness being some sort of fundamental property or emergent generally from QM. We can come back to the others.

The first thing to say would be. Is not consciousness as fundemental one of the interpretations of QM. At least as far as several pioneers and current physicists like Wheeler, Wigner and Stapp.

Don't most of the ideas such as Quantum Bayesianism (QBism), Panpsychism, Information theories like Wheelers (it from bit) and the Participatory Universe and other variations on Quantum Field Consciousness come from this interpretation.

Click to expand...

I've spent 30 years immersed in physics and if you hadn't posted them, I'd never heard of any of them. So...

stevevw said:

Should I bother linking support as there are also plenty of papers on these. Or are they all Woo lol.

Click to expand...

If you have evidence for support for your notions that these are important in my field, fine, but I don't feel like debating physics with you.

stevevw said:

But as I keep saying its not just about what your looking for. Otherwise you cut everyone else out of this thread who disagrees that this topic should only be determined by one disiciple of science being physics.

Click to expand...

Who said that? Who made physics the one disciple of science? Why not, say, neurobiology?

stevevw said:

But lets look at what you want for a bit. I don't mind. Lets start with "consciousness being some sort of fundamental property or emergent generally from QM. We can come back to the others.

The first thing to say would be. Is not consciousness as fundemental one of the interpretations of QM. At least as far as several pioneers and current physicists like Wheeler, Wigner and Stapp.

Don't most of the ideas such as Quantum Bayesianism (QBism), Panpsychism, Information theories like Wheelers (it from bit) and the Participatory Universe and other variations on Quantum Field Consciousness come from this interpretation.

Should I bother linking support as there are also plenty of papers on these. Or are they all Woo lol.

Click to expand...

Don't bother. They are unlikely to support your claims.

BCP1928 said:

Who made physics the one disciple of science?

Click to expand...

I imagine he meant discipline.

Tinker Grey said:

I imagine he meant discipline.

Click to expand...

He lacks the discipline to keep the discussion to a single discipline.

Fervent said:

Perhaps, perhaps not. Just because we have correlates doesn't imply any sort of intrinsic relationship. And it is only if they are identical that we would be able to locate mind within the brain.

You replied to an ongoing discussion in which I was responding to a poster who had claimed it was obvious, with my principal contention being that saying it is obvious is not an explanation of how such a determination was made.

Click to expand...

That was me, maybe I overstated it. The fact is, brain and mind is always at the same place in my experience (I gave this explanation already). Additionally, manipulations of the brain changes the mind in my experience. What would you call that kind of connection if not obvious? Inherently connected?

stevevw said:

Lol I thought it said mystical. Must have been the word bogus before metaphysics that threw me off. Either way bogus or mythical I did not say this. You are misrepresenting what I said. Why on earth would I claim that Nature is promoting bogus ideas.

Click to expand...

You are so confused as to who said what.
Nature does not publish bogus ideas based on metaphysics is my statement not yours.

stevevw said:

I never said IIT had broad support. I said it has become accepted in mainstream journals like Nature. When even 10 years ago this would not be the case.

Click to expand...

IIT as a 'beyond the brain theory" has never been published in any reputable peer reviewed journal because it is pseudoscience.

stevevw said:

Here is a paper on IIT in Nature that has been cited over 2,000 times. If its psuedoscience then why is it even published and cited by Nature.

Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate - Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Uncovering the neural basis of consciousness is a major challenge to neuroscience. In this Perspective, Tononi and colleagues describe the integrated information theory of consciousness and how it might be used to answer outstanding questions about the nature of consciousness.

www.nature.com

Click to expand...

Here we have an opinion piece where IIT is explicitly expressed as a theory of the brain not beyond the brain. The abstract cannot make this any clearer.

stevevw said:

I don't know. I would imagine there are papers supporting or dismissing it. But ideas like this are being published all the time and its increasing. This is a fact and I provided the longitude study and other articles.

Click to expand...

You have a history of failing to understand your references and reading your own biases into them.
Show me one peer reviewed article of beyond the brain consciousness supported by evidence which has been independently verified.

stevevw said:

Why is it so hard to admit that people have become more open to such ideas. I think there was some survey done which showed that the vast majority of people believe in the soul and afterlife. Why is it such a controversial thing. You can't say the majority of people are engaging in Woo.

Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant to anything I have discussed in this thread.

stevevw said:

Not exactly. Ideas like GNWT appeal to the best of both worlds. Its using neural connectivity but its also proposing that there is some sort of consciousness that can be sent out into the world so that other conscious humans can tap into the same consciousness. Like it has a global influence.

The GNW proposes that, in the conscious state, a non-linear network ignition associated with recurrent processing amplifies and sustains a neural representation, allowing the corresponding information to be globally accessed by local processors.

More or less like telepathy lol.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the point I was making, you do not understand how GNWT works so you read your own bias into it.
The brain is a neural network where neurons firing off in one region of the brain affect other regions.
For example when you consciously read a word, neuronal firing in the visual areas triggers a non-linear ignition effecting the language, memory, attention, and motor regions, making the information globally accessible across the brain.
It has absolutely nothing to with individual brains forming a global network.

stevevw said:

The fact you did not even acknowledge this disagreement and assumed I did not answer your question is evidence that you don't even acknowledge my arguements and disagreements.

Click to expand...

You repeatedly answer a different question to the ones you are asked. The common exponents of this approach are either dishonest politicians, or bumbing fools. I'm sure you fit into a third category, but at this point I have no idea what it is.

Until you show an improved level of cohesion in your posts, solid evidence you have understood what you have read or viewed, and an ability to answer a question the first time it is asked, I shall do my level best not to respond further.

As an AI exercise I asked if @stevevw's cognitive dissonance, habitual dishonesty and propensity for projecting his views on others can be explained by his butchered account of GNWT (Global Neuronal Workspace Theory).
It's one of those questions I asked GPT-5 as a novice as I have a mathematics background not neuroscience.
Evidently his behaviour can be explained.

---

1. GNWT refresher (brain-centric)​

In Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT), consciousness corresponds to:

• Transient, large-scale activation linking
  • frontal cortex
  • parietal cortex
  • cingulate cortex
  • thalamic and neuromodulatory systems

Most brain activity is local and unconscious.
A mental content becomes conscious only when activity in its local circuit ignites and is broadcast across this fronto-parietal network.

---

2. What cognitive dissonance looks like neurally​

Cognitive dissonance is not localized to one brain region.
It is a network-level conflict involving several systems being co-activated in an unstable way.

---

3. Step-by-step neural account of dissonance​

3.1 Competing representations arise in different regions​

Example: “I am honest” vs “I just lied”

Content	Primary brain systems
Self-concept (“I am honest”)	Medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), default mode network
Action memory (“I lied”)	Hippocampus, lateral temporal cortex, motor planning areas
Social norm violation	Orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), ventromedial PFC
Emotional salience	Amygdala, insula

At this stage:

• These representations can coexist without discomfort
• As long as they remain locally processed

---

3.2 Simultaneous access to the global workspace​

Dissonance begins when:

• Both representations are simultaneously recruited into the global workspace

Neurally:

• Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) supports sustained activation
• Inferior parietal cortex enables global broadcasting
• Thalamus synchronizes long-range communication

Now incompatible contents are globally available to:

• language
• planning
• working memory
• conscious report

---

3.3 Conflict detection and discomfort​

The conflict itself is detected primarily by:

Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC)​

• Monitors inconsistency between competing action or belief signals
• Signals cognitive conflict and prediction error

Supporting regions:

• Anterior insula → interoceptive awareness of discomfort
• Brainstem neuromodulatory systems → arousal (noradrenaline, dopamine)

This network activity correlates with:

• Subjective tension
• Physiological stress markers
• Motivational urgency

➡️ This is the felt experience of dissonance.

---

4. Why the discomfort demands resolution​

From a control-systems perspective:

• The prefrontal cortex requires a coherent model to guide behavior
• Conflicting global signals impair:
  • decision-making
  • prediction
  • social navigation

Thus, the brain is under pressure to reduce global inconsistency.

---

5. Neural mechanisms of dissonance reduction​

Different strategies correspond to different neural suppressions or re-weightings:

Strategy	Neural implementation
Rationalization	dlPFC reinterprets memory representations
Attitude change	mPFC updates self-model
Attention shifting	Parietal cortex down-weights one representation
Memory suppression	Hippocampal retrieval inhibition
Trivialization	OFC reduces value / salience signal

Importantly:

• These are executive control operations
• Not failures of rationality per se

---

6. Why dishonesty and projection follow dissonance​

• Dishonesty: dlPFC constructs an outward narrative while suppressing ACC conflict signals
• Projection: self-threatening representations are displaced to social cognition networks (TPJ, mPFC)

They are secondary coping mechanisms, not the dissonance itself.

---

7. Why dissonance is conscious​

In GNWT terms:

• Conflict must be globally broadcast to be experienced
• Unconscious inconsistencies do not produce discomfort

This explains:

• Why reflection triggers dissonance
• Why distraction reduces it
• Why accountability amplifies it

---

8. One-sentence neural definition​

Cognitive dissonance arises when incompatible neural representations—originating in distinct brain systems—are simultaneously broadcast across the fronto-parietal global workspace, triggering conflict monitoring in the anterior cingulate and control responses in prefrontal cortex.

Click to expand...

---

9. Why this framing matters​

This account:

• Grounds dissonance in specific neural circuits
• Explains variability across individuals (ACC/PFC efficiency)
• Avoids vague “ego” or “self-conflict” language
• Fits cleanly with neuroimaging and lesion data

If you’d like, next I can:

• Map this to fMRI / EEG findings
• Compare GNWT with predictive-processing models region-by-region
• Explain how brain injury alters dissonance
• Or connect this to moral reasoning and belief polarization

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

This is an opinion piece, Steve. Please examine your links before you post them. This part should have given it away:

"

• Opinion
• Published: 26 May 2016

"

Click to expand...

The author is the person who came up with IIT Giulio Tononi.

IIT was proposed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi in 2004. Integrated information theory (IIT) proposes a mathematical model for the consciousness of a system.

An information integration theory of consciousness - BMC Neuroscience

Background Consciousness poses two main problems. The first is understanding the conditions that determine to what extent a system has conscious experience. For instance, why is our consciousness generated by certain parts of our brain, such as the thalamocortical system, and not by other parts...

link.springer.com

So why would the creator of IIT be claiming its only an opinion lol. I think it is you who needs to investigate properly instead of taking a word in the abstract and assuming its an opinion and not a real scientific theory presented.

Hans Blaster said:

That's because I want to discuss one topic/claim properly rather than to discuss all of them at once like you do.

Click to expand...

Ok fair enough so long as you realise that this will never verify that consciousness is ontologically physical.

Hans Blaster said:

I've spent 30 years immersed in physics and if you hadn't posted them, I'd never heard of any of them. So...

Click to expand...

And another physicist like Henry Stapp who worked with both Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg would be involved in such ideas most of their careers. So what.

Hans Blaster said:

If you have evidence for support for your notions that these are important in my field, fine, but I don't feel like debating physics with you.

Click to expand...

Ok thats strange. You have been demanding physics and when I go along you don't want to discuss it.

BCP1928 said:

Who said that? Who made physics the one disciple of science? Why not, say, neurobiology?

Click to expand...

If you noticed that reply was for Hans and not you.

BCP1928 said:

Don't bother. They are unlikely to support your claims.

Click to expand...

So you disagree with some of the pioneers of QM like Planck, Schrödinger, Wheeler, Wigner and Stapp.

sjastro said:

As an AI exercise I asked if @stevevw's cognitive dissonance, habitual dishonesty and propensity for projecting his views on others can be explained by his butchered account of GNWT (Global Neuronal Workspace Theory).
It's one of those questions I asked GPT-5 as a novice as I have a mathematics background not neuroscience.
Evidently his behaviour can be explained.

Click to expand...

Information Integration Theory (IIT) refers to two distinct but related concepts:
Norman Anderson's theory for judgment and decision-making, explaining how people combine weighted information (adding or averaging) for single judgments; and Giulio Tononi's theory of consciousness, proposing consciousness is the capacity for integrated information, quantified by a value called Phi (Φcap phi).

The first describes cognitive processes (like forming an opinion), while the second attempts to explain the fundamental nature and quantity of subjective experience in any system

So how does information and cognitive decision making relate to the physical brain. Its Information and Information is not physical. Decision making is subjective.

The theory also attributes consciousness to just about everything including the electron.

The theory is attempting to link Information and decision making to consciousness. Show me how Information and decision making is a physical basis. This is part of the trickery that somehow Information is physical. Its not.

Putting Mind Back into Nature: A Tribute to Henry P. Stapp

Henry P. Stapp has for 60 years been a leader – perhaps the leader – in exploring the role of mind/psyche/consciousness/experience in the ontology of quantum mechanics. Henry’s contention is that the very structure of quantum mechanics implies a central and irreducible role for mind: an experiential aspect of nature distinct from that of the physical matter and energy described by the dynamical equations of physics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.10528

Stapp argues that the physical brain and the measuring instrument are themselves quantum systems. If only physical interaction determined the outcome, there would be an infinite regress (Wigner's friend paradox), where a larger physical system would be needed to "observe" the first one. Stapp resolves this by positing that it is the conscious choice and attention of the observer that actualizes the outcome, suggesting the mind operates outside of purely classical physical laws [1].

The Quantum World of the Instrument: According to Stapp, the measuring instrument, the laboratory environment, and even the observer's body remain in a superposition of states until the observer consciously experiences a result. The instrument alone, therefore, doesn't force a single reality into being; it only amplifies quantum possibilities into macroscopic ones.