Talk:Quantum mind

I recently found these observations that Quantum Mind theorists have made that may perhaps be put into the article: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0701&L=quantum-mind&P=59

In addition one quantum mind theorist responded to a criticism by Shermer which also highlights that this theory has gone into the testing phase: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/hackery.htm (just scroll down to the second article)

Our content:

• The proposed existence of gap junctions between neurons and glial cells was also falsified.

Cites:

• Binmöller, F. J. & Müller, C. M. (1992). "Postnatal development of dye-coupling among astrocytes in rat visual cortex". Glia. 6 (2): 127–137. doi:10.1002/glia.440060207. PMID 1328051. S2CID 548862.

But the abstract of that source ends with:

• It is concluded that coupling among astrocytes via gap junctions in rat visual cortex occurs shortly after birth and reflects one of the first steps in astroglial maturation

This contradicts the claim rather than verifies it. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The article cites

• van den Noort, Maurits; Lim, Sabina; Bosch, Peggy (2016-10-28). "Towards a theory of everything: The observer's unconscious brain". Nature. 538 (7623): 36–37. Bibcode:2016Natur.538...36D. doi:10.1038/538036a.

However the DOI link points to a different article. Google Scholar only has a "Citation" for the article. The Nature site fails to return an article with that title. A search on the Nature site for the authors names also fail.

The author's own article https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/2347-8659.2016.55 cites a publication in Nature with the given title with a link http://www.nature.com/nature/report/index.html?comment=8881&doi=10.1038/53803a. I believe it is an online comment on a book review:

• Dawid, R. Theoretical physics: The emperor's new physics. Nature 538, 36–37 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/538036a

Consequently I will delete the content and the ref as self-publish by a non-expert in the topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to propose adding a recently published theoretical framework that introduces a measurable, brainwave-based quantum consciousness operator to the list of experimental or mathematical models under the “Quantum mind” article. Simion, N. (2025). The Unified Quantum Consciousness Framework: A Revised Model Integrating Quantum Mechanics, Consciousness, and Holographic Gravity. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15660117 This model proposes a consciousness operator Ĉₙ(t), grounded in EEG and MEG signals and formulated via the Lindblad equation for decoherence, connecting quantum information, entropy, and brain dynamics. It is mathematically formalized and openly accessible. It may be relevant under the "Experimental and theoretical models" section, alongside Orch-OR and related proposals. Thank you for considering this addition. Nicu Simion (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is generally written based on secondary sources from major publishers. There isn't really anything we can do with a self published preprint off of Zenodo. Can you provide some secondary sources with authors independent of yourself? MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I just want to second the nicely framed comment by MrOllie. More details on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Yup. Wikipedia isn't a provider of free publicity for random papers uploaded to open repositories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I propose adding a brief mention of Dr. Manuel Sans Segarra to the article, specifically regarding the clinical and cultural reception of quantum mind hypotheses in the Spanish-speaking and international context.

Dr. Sans Segarra is a prominent Spanish surgeon (former Head of Digestive Surgery at Bellvitge University Hospital) and a Full Member of the Royal European Academy of Doctors (RAED). He has been a key figure in discussing the concept of "supraconsciousness" (supraconciencia), linking quantum mechanics with Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) from a clinical perspective.

Including him provides a more global view of how these hypotheses are discussed in the medical and public sphere outside the English-speaking academic circle.

Proposed references:

Academic Credentials: Royal European Academy of Doctors (RAED). "Dr. Manuel Sans Segarra". https://raed.academy/en/academicians/dr-manuel-sans-segarra/

International Media Impact: CNN Portugal. "É médico e garante que tem provas objetivas de que há vida depois da morte". https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/manuel-sans-segarra/vida-depois-da-morte/e-medico-e-garante-que-tem-provas-objetivas-de-que-ha-vida-depois-da-morte-chegaremos-a-um-momento-em-que-seremos-todos-santos/20250608/6839fcf9d34e3f0bae9ed5f6

Public/National Media Impact (RTVE):

TV Interview (Gemma Nierga, RTVE): "Manuel Sans Segarra: 'La supreconsciència existeix'". https://www.rtve.es/play/videos/cafe-didees/manuel-sans-segarra-supreconsciencia-existeix-entrevista-gemma-nierga-llibre/16549022/

Radio Interview (RNE): "Manuel Sans Segarra: 'Nuestra supraconciencia es holística'". https://www.rtve.es/play/audios/24-horas/24-horas-rne-manuel-sans-segarra-nuestra-supraconciencia-holistica/16252549/

I would appreciate the community's feedback on how to best integrate this mention to reflect the clinical and cultural impact of these theories.

Thank you. Supraconciencia (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The sources given are not about the article topic. They mention "quantum mechanics" in a couple of sentences and the person being interviewed has no evident background in the subject. There is no evidence that the claims of the person being interviews have had impact beyond these media interviews. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.

I understand your concern regarding sourcing standards. To address the issue of "casual mentions" vs. "substantial topic coverage," I am providing the primary published source, evidence of commercial impact (bestseller status), and academic engagement.

1. Primary Source (Published Monograph)

The specific arguments connecting Quantum Mechanics to NDEs are the central thesis of his recent book, published by a major editorial house (Planeta).

* Book: La supraconciencia existe: Vida después de la vida (2024).

* Publisher: Editorial Planeta.

* ISBN: 978-84-08-29128-2.

* Relevance & Specific Analogy: Chapters 4 and 5 are explicitly dedicated to arguing that consciousness operates via quantum non-locality. Dr. Sans Segarra establishes a specific analogy based on wave-particle duality: he posits that humans possess a "corpuscular" dimension (matter/biological body) and a "wave" dimension (energy/consciousness).

He argues that during NDEs (clinical death), the material "particle" aspect collapses, while the "wave" aspect persists non-locally, claiming this adheres to the conservation of energy and quantum mechanics principles.

2. Institutional Verification (RAED)

To verify that these are not fringe views but discussed in institutional settings, here is the summary from the Royal European Academy of Doctors:

https://raed.academy/la-supraconciencia-la-vida-mas-alla-de-la-vida/

Quote: "The theoretical physics that studies the microscopic world... demonstrates that the basic structural element of the universe is not matter, but energy... [Dr. Sans Segarra] justifies the existence of Supraconsciousness from this scientific basis."

3. Evidence of Impact and Notability

The subject has achieved significant cultural and academic coverage, fulfilling WP:NOTABILITY:

* Commercial Impact (Bestseller): The book has been listed as a top-selling non-fiction title in Spain for 2025, demonstrating widespread public engagement with these theories.

* Source: Esquire - "Los libros más vendidos de 2025 en España" https://www.esquire.com/es/actualidad/libros/g63833331/libros-mas-vendidos-2025-espana/

* Academic Critique: His work has generated specific critical analysis in the academic community:

* Source (ResearchGate): "Superconsciousness and Quantum Mechanics: A Critical Analysis of the Theses of Dr. Manuel Sans Segarra"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398953719_Superconsciousness_and_Quantum_Mechanics_A_Critical_Analysis_of_the_Theses_of_Dr_Manuel_Sans_Segarra Supraconciencia (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:AITALK. From the book jacket "Dr. Manuel Sans Segarra is a physician and surgeon specializing in general and digestive surgery, with a particular focus on oncological surgery." Johnjbarton (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if my previous replies seemed automated.

I was just trying to provide complete references.

Regarding your point:

Yes, he is a surgeon. That is precisely why his inclusion is relevant in a section about Cultural or Clinical Reception.

I am not proposing him as a theoretical physicist, but as a notable medical figure whose work demonstrates how Quantum Mind theories are currently being discussed and interpreted in the Spanish-speaking world.

His book is a bestseller (Editorial Planeta) specifically on this topic.

Wikipedia should document significant international cultural debates surrounding the subject, not just the views of physicists.

Excluding a verifiable, high-impact source simply because the author is a surgeon limits the global scope of the article.

Thank you for your time. Supraconciencia (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The Royal European Academy of Doctors piece isn't a 'summary' of anything. it is a report of an address by one of its own members, Dr Segarra. Primary-sourced promotion. The Researchgate paper (a preprint, which we wouldn't normally cite) basically amounts to 'this is pseudoscientific nonsense'. The Esquire article constitutes nothing more than a single paragraph blurb in a list of '45 best-selling books of 2025 in Spain'. Neither constitutes evidence of 'significant cultural and academic coverage', and Wikipedia is under no obligation whatsoever to promote this example of quantum woo, any more than it was to promote all the similar nonsense that came before. Books like this are ten a penny, have nothing to do with quantum physics, and if they merit discussion at all, it is only if they have actually had significant in-depth coverage in independent published reliable sources. We'd need a lot more than this to go on, and under no circumstances are we going to give any credence to the fringe waffle in the book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I should have clarified: the point about the author being a surgeon is relevant because he is not a expert on the article topic. We sometimes agree to cite unreviewed publications by well-known experts on the topics they are expert in. That is not the case here. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and for taking the time to explain your perspective. Supraconciencia (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)