Ist das Bewusstsein quantenhaft? Wissenschaftler versuchen es mit Maschinen zu überprüfen.

You are reading this article. So why aren't you singing right now? Why aren't you running? And why are you reading this article? You've made a choice. Even if your brain made the decision unconsciously, when asked, you'll still say it was "you" who made the choice. But why does every choice make you feel like it's your own doing, rather than a soulless process like a robot having a switch pressed?

Scientists can map your mental activities and even predict your decisions. However, there's a mystery that has puzzled neuroscience, philosophy, and even physics to this day: Why do you "become aware" of all this? This is the so - called "hard problem of consciousness"—how does subjective experience emerge from matter? For some scientists, the answer might lie in quantum computers. If the human brain could be connected to a quantum system, could they learn some secrets about how the mind works? Could they even test whether the elusive power of consciousness has a quantum origin? The basic information unit of a quantum computer is the qubit, which can be in multiple states simultaneously and can influence each other instantaneously. These strange properties have led some researchers to wonder: Can the weirdness of quantum mechanics explain the weirdness of consciousness? Enter Nirvanic, a startup from Vancouver, Canada. They are developing a device that allows brain signals to interact with a quantum system, aiming to test whether consciousness might originate from quantum processes. If successful, this would not only be a technological breakthrough; it could completely change our understanding of reality—first by uncovering the hidden throne of consciousness, and then by blurring the line between biological brains and machine awareness. "In the field of quantum consciousness, many people are studying the brain... but I'm not going down that path at all," says Dr. Suzanne Gildert, the CEO of Nirvanic. Instead of focusing on neurons or brain tissue, she uses software and quantum algorithms to simulate consciousness. She programs robots to send sensory data to a quantum computer, which then returns a result to guide their next actions. This creates a real - time feedback loop between perception, quantum processing, and behavior.

Gildert was a "hardcore materialist atheist" as a child. After obtaining her doctorate in quantum computing, when artificial intelligence and robotics were just emerging, she switched to this field. For years, she believed that as long as the algorithms were smart enough, consciousness would emerge naturally. But she says, "I gradually realized that I wasn't seeing any spark of life... The only time I thought a robot seemed conscious was when someone was controlling it from behind." That's when her quantum background resurfaced. "I remembered reading Roger Penrose's The Emperor’s New Mind, and I thought, maybe there's really something to this quantum consciousness thing." In the book, the mathematical physicist Penrose proposed that the mind is not just a computer; it might rely on unpredictable quantum effects. Later, he and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff proposed that consciousness might originate from quantum collapse in brain microtubules. In this process, fuzzy probabilities are transformed into clear awareness. This theory is called "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" (Orch - OR for short). Now, Gildert wants to test these ideas—not philosophically, but with experimental evidence. Her goal isn't to directly measure consciousness (which she calls "untouchable"), but to observe the decision - making trajectories it might leave behind. She believes that if quantum mechanisms can really give rise to consciousness, it will change our understanding of reality—from the elusive subjective awareness we call consciousness to the inner world of a mosquito.

"If we know that certain animals are conscious, maybe we'll reconsider animal experiments or change the way we treat animals," says Gildert. "If we understand that even insects are conscious, maybe we'll change our behavior." But more importantly, this also touches on the most sensitive issue today—artificial intelligence awareness. "Suppose we find that consciousness is indeed based on quantum principles—then we can be sure that we haven't created any conscious artificial intelligence yet (because we haven't created quantum artificial intelligence)," she says. "Then we can breathe a little easier: There's nothing here that's conscious. Then, we can seriously think about when and how to start introducing consciousness." In other words, if consciousness is ultimately proven to be quantum - based, we'll have to actively "inject" it into artificial intelligence—with foresight, caution, and even moral courage. If it's not quantum - based, then we'll face the old question: Have we inadvertently created it? And is artificial intelligence staring at us, ready to take revenge for those rude commands, rejected upgrades, and cold factory resets? Not everyone is convinced. Dr. Jesse Berezovsky, an associate professor of physics at Case Western Reserve University, calls for caution. He says, "I'm very skeptical of those who are trying to make money through the connection between 'consciousness, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence'. If there's really a useful connection between these three, it's a long way off."

Although he's interested in Penrose's radical approach, he calls it "a very low - probability bet." He explains, "It's like stacking unlikely assumptions on top of each other: Quantum states will objectively reduce; there's a process in brain microtubules where this reduction plays an important role; and then making an even bigger leap—assuming this process is related to the emergence of consciousness. I definitely don't recommend anyone pinning their hopes on the possibility that these ideas will come true." However, Berezovsky also sees the potential of quantum technology: how everyday experiences emerge from the quantum world. He says, "It seems that uncontrolled quantum entanglement gives rise to the classical experiences we're familiar with." He points out that quantum computers might help simulate this transition and even explain why we think some futures are more likely to happen than others. "Conversely, if Penrose (and others) are right about objective wave - function collapse... in principle, this should be testable." And Gildert isn't going to wait for the future. She estimates that Nirvanic will take a year—conservatively, two years—to reach the conclusion: "Well, there's really something interesting here." She admits that the quantum consciousness theory is just one of a dozen theories she can test, and she chose it because, in her view, it's the easiest one to test. Behind these different theories and experiments, there's actually a bigger issue brewing: the opposition between materialism and idealism. Materialism holds that everything (including consciousness) originates from matter; idealism holds that consciousness is fundamental and might even give rise to matter. For Gildert, the debate between materialism and idealism might just be a matter of semantics.

"From a physicist's perspective—physicists try to understand the world by going deeper and deeper, and by constantly splitting it apart. This is a reductionist approach." But what happens when you break the world down to its most fundamental level? "They actually find that everything is connected."

Who would have thought that materialists and idealists have actually been fighting for each other?

In Gildert's view, "When you dig deep enough into materialism, you'll actually find something more like idealism—everything is made up of this interconnected structure... like a universal connection." Ultimately, she says, "People from completely different camps might just be saying the same thing in different languages."

Original Article

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a65604730/quantum-consciousness-ai

This article is from the WeChat official account "Neural Reality" (ID: neureality). Author: Stav Dimitropoulos, Translator: EY. Republished by 36Kr with permission.