Really fundamentally cannot be, and not exist , any really scientific “quantum theories of mind”, and so corresponding “decoherence problems”. As that is rigorously scientifically proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

Compact, but essentially clear and rather in detail introduction in the conception see in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception,

- the informational systems “Matter” and any “Consciousness” , including observed version “consciousness on Earth”, which resides in/on every living being, including humans, are fundamentally different, including operate in different spaces. At that consciousness first of all operates in own space, though fundamentally is able to interact, and interacts, with material structures.

The main functional modules of “consciousness-computer”, i.e. “processor” and “random access memory” [in psychology “short term memory”] operate outside matter, while practically material brain is used as “hard disk” [“long term memory”] and power supply for main functional modules,

- and at the communication between the modules any QM effects have sense only as a nous, which, though, with a well non-zero probability is inessential.

Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-could-be-proof-of-consciousness#view=6864f009df2e89631503914f/360 page 360 , and links in the post,

- are relevant in this case.

Cheers

Dear Sergei Shevchenko,

I appreciate your time and contribution to the debate, as well as sharing the links to your work on "Information as Absolute."

I have read your perspective with interest, and if I understand it correctly, your model of "the computer of consciousness" is based on a fundamentally different philosophical premise than mine. Your model seems to propose a form of functional dualism, where certain key aspects of consciousness (the "processor" and "RAM") operate "outside of matter," using the brain primarily as a passive storage substrate ("hard drive").

Physicobioneurodynamics, by contrast, starts from a rigorously non-dualist stance. It does not seek to separate consciousness from its substrate, but rather to find the transduction mechanism that links the physics of the brain with the phenomenology of experience. My model does not treat information as an entity operating in its "own space," but as an emergent property of the dynamics of the physical system.

This is where the "Phenomenological Trace" becomes relevant. My goal is not to postulate an independently existing "quantum mind," which, as you point out, faces enormous theoretical challenges. The approach is more modest and, I believe, more plausible: to investigate whether the residual, classical effects of quantum processes at the microtubular level can be detected and amplified by the neural network through known physical mechanisms, such as Stochastic Resonance.

Therefore, it is not a question of consciousness being quantum, but rather that it might be sensitive enough to tap into the echoes of the quantum world reverberating in its own physical substrate to enrich its dynamics.

I once again appreciate your perspective, as it helps clarify the fundamental axioms from which we begin. It is evident that we approach the problem from very different philosophical frameworks, which undoubtedly enriches the discussion.

Best regards.

Arturo,

excellent. You seem to provide genuine work in this field.

Dear Arturo Salazar Chon ,

- I understand that you seem quite frankly believe that your philosophical approach that discards “philosophical dualism” and so that

“…My model does not treat information as an entity operating in its "own space," but as an emergent property of the dynamics of the physical system.….”

- is true.

Really this above is scientifically fundamentally questionable, since, as that is rigorously scientifically proven in the SS*VT conception [see SS post above] Matter – and any material structure – is/are rigorously logically closed systems, and so nothing outside Mater principally cannot emerge in/from any material structure. That happens only in rather simple HCNO “protein” structures “living beings organisms”, while besides this in Matter practically infinite nimber of quite diverse structures exist, but only “protein” structures have “the phenomenology of experience”.

Including, say, using a wording of some soul defender [a theologist] “Matter doesn’t make smartphones”, though smartphones are completely material structures, and so without any principal problem could “emerge” in matter in more 10 billion of years,

- however even this [quite specifically organized by some non-material consciousnesses ] structure till in it again some non-material consciousnesses don’t install again quite non-material “program shells” remain being nothing else than only some sets of atoms and molecules.

At that, say, “Physicobioneurodynamics effects” are well observed even in bacteria behavior, which have no brains and even no neurons, but which, including, well solve “antibiotics problems” in a few years, which are posed to them by some HCNO “protein” structures that have brains and neurons, who develop antibiotics also in a few years.

Etc. , my posts aren’t intended for discard your model since I don’t like it - I write first of all not only to you, but also for other readers, clarifying for them these really fundamental and actual – and in the mainstream science so well popular and having numerous really unscientific “solutions”, problems – what are “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Life”,

- so that they could really scientifically elaborate the utmost fundamental for every human problems “what am I?”, “what is outside me?”, and “what is place and role of human’s consciousness in the “outside”, i.e. in the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set?”, and who really can attempt to answer the questions above.

That is another thing, that for this it is necessary for the humans to be able to think really scientifically, i.e. logically, objectively, and critically; what is indeed a really hard problem for humans – in principal contrast to inventing diverse really fantastic unscientific “hard problems” and their fantastic “solutions”; what is quite easy , and so now rather numerous mainstream philosophers and scientists write this each other in innumerous publications.

Cheers

Serguéi,

Thank you again for taking the time to elaborate your response and share your perspective.

I understand that, given your conception of "information as absolute" and material systems as "closed," my proposal regarding the emergence of complex properties is questionable.

I believe this is the fundamental and irreconcilable difference between our approaches. Physicobioneurodynamics, while ambitious, is built entirely on the premise of methodological naturalism and the principle of falsifiability. Every postulate, from the "Phenomenological Trace" to its measurable "fractal signature," is designed to be tested and potentially refuted through experiments.

The questions you pose—"What am I?", "What is outside of me?"—are, indeed, the deepest in existence and the ultimate driving force of this research. However, my framework is limited to addressing only those aspects of these questions that can be translated into scientific and operational hypotheses.

I appreciate the discussion, which has been helpful in defining the philosophical boundaries of each project. I wish you much success in your work.

Best regards.

Arturo ,

- in your posts it well looks that you rather rationally understand what is written in my posts, so - although that you till now want to continue your approach, which is quite typical in mainstream philosophy, and so without any problems can be/will be published in any conventional philosophical journal, looks as rather natural,

- let me hope that in some time you will attempt to answers “What am I?", etc., at least only for himself, really.

I wish you much success in this.

Cheers

PS I got RG notification that you recommended some my post, but don’t see this -?

Dear Sergei,

I deeply appreciate the recommendation of your article "Information as Absolute." I have read it with the utmost interest, as your work addresses the same fundamental questions that guide my own research. Your proposal of Information as the basis of reality is bold and provocative.

In analyzing your framework, and in the spirit of rigorous debate, a number of fundamental questions have arisen about its foundations and implications. I would like to present them to you, not as a refutation, but as an invitation to a deeper dialogue.

Problem of Epistemological Foundation:

Your framework posits "Information" as absolute reality, divided into two ontological subsystems: matter as "closed information" and consciousness as "open information." My question is: what is the epistemological basis for this division? It appears to be an axiom presented without justification. From what philosophical framework or empirical evidence does it follow that this distinction is not merely functional, but a fundamental property of existence?

Falsifiability Problem:

Your model places the core processes of consciousness (the "processor," the "RAM") in a domain that operates "outside of matter." If this domain is, by definition, inaccessible to our instruments (which are material), how could your theory be falsified? A framework that cannot be refuted runs the risk of operating as a dogmatic system rather than a scientific theory, no matter how elegant its internal coherence.

Psychosomatic Interaction Problem:

The clinical and experimental evidence for psychosomatics is overwhelming. A purely material state (a drug, a hormone, an injury) can drastically alter the structure of conscious experience. If consciousness is an external processor that simply "uses" the brain as a hard drive, how does your model explain this profound causal interdependence? What is the transduction mechanism that allows a material change to alter the "software" that supposedly operates outside of matter?

Problem of Sensory Transduction:

Similarly, the process of perception, such as vision, presents a challenge. If light (photons, waves, particles, energy, electromagnetic radiation) is "information" that is absorbed, what is the exact mechanism that transforms it into an electrical signal on the retina (matter) and, ultimately, into the subjective quality of color (consciousness)? Your model seems to overlook this "hard problem" of transduction between domains.

The Question of Identity ("What am I?"):

Finally, your question "What am I?" is indeed the central question. However, it seems to me that your own framework has the most difficulty answering it. If "I" am an open information system temporarily residing in a material body, where does the continuity of my identity reside? Is it the information that persists? Or is it the pattern of interaction? Your question, far from challenging my model of the "Phenomenological Trace" (which proposes a mechanism for the emergence of self-awareness through the integration of information), seems to expose a fundamental tension within your own informational dualism.

As you can see, my interest in your work is genuine and profound. I believe we are attacking the same mountain from opposite sides. I hope these questions will serve to enrich our dialogue.

Best regards.

I have spent time reading your recommended articles, including "The Information as Absolute" and "The Informational Physical Model," and other articles you have worked on with Vladimir Tokarevsky, in order to understand your conceptual framework. It is an ambitious work that seeks, like mine, to unify science.

However, in my analysis, I find several fundamental problems that your theory seems to ignore or leave unanswered, and on which I would like your perspective.

You postulate that "Information" is the absolute, divided into two systems: "closed" Matter and "open" Consciousness. However, I find no epistemological or etiological justification for this axiomatic division. You also propose that Consciousness interacts with the brain through "unknown" or "nonphysical" forces.

• This leads me to the following analogy: you describe the arrival of a settler (Consciousness) on a new continent (Matter), but you do not explain the bridge or the ship used to cross the ocean that separates them. It simply states that the arrival occurred.

My work focuses precisely on the design of that bridge. The "Phenomenological Footprint" is a hypothesis about the transduction mechanism. The "Network Entropy Model" is an attempt to measure the traffic crossing that bridge.

Therefore, my questions are not attacks, but rather a need for rigor:

• If your theory cannot explain the interaction mechanism (the "bridge"), how can it be a complete framework? Ignoring the problem of transduction and psychosomatics is, from my perspective, a scientific risk.

• If Consciousness operates "outside of matter," how can your theory be falsifiable? A science that does not expose itself to refutation or some elegant solution, but only to weaknesses or criticisms, runs the risk of becoming a dogma or pseudoscience, as with Roger Penrouse and Stuart Hameroff's theory of Orchestrated Objective Reduction.

• And finally, if your framework cannot explain how light information is converted into the experience of color, or how bodily stress alters the mind, then how could your theory answer its own question: "What am I?"

It seems to me that before being able to answer "what am I," any theory must first answer the fundamental question of "how do I feel?"

My work is an attempt to answer this second question with a falsifiable model. I welcome the debate, because it has served to clarify the profound differences between our approaches. My paradigm seeks to build the bridge; yours, it seems to me, has not yet explained how to cross the ocean.

Best regards and success.

Dear Arturo,

- from your last posts it looks as worthwhile to remind here a few general notes: again, in mainstream philosophy and sciences , including, despite you have read the linked in SS posts papers, essentially till now for you, a number of really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all - “ Space” . “Time”, “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational.,

Including so, despite that the phenomena/notions aren’t some isolated things, nonetheless for a purely transcendent reasons, and so by quite transcendent ways, they are considered in the mainstream philosophy in different “ontologies” [of Matter, space, .....].

The result is quite logically inevitable – rather numerous different/diverse really transcendent “ontologies” , which by no means are really scientifically rationally grounded mental constructions.

The fundamental phenomena/notions can be, and are, rigorously scientifically clarified only in the SS&VT “The Infromation as Absolute” conception [link in SS posts on page1] where, quite briefly:

- it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, The Set exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists absolutely eternally, having no Beginning and no End;

- while the utmost general scientifically rigorous definition of the so absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is:

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”

All the above is, of course, based on real experiments, where any information is observed [what humans, including philosophers, innumerously make in everyday practice], i.e. is nothing else than really scientific interpretation of experimental data – in contrast to the mainstream, first of all philosophy where the scientists use some information completely instinctively, seems even non-suspecting that in this case quite scientific problems exist: “what is “I”” , what is “Information”? and for what/by not mystic reason/way “I” instinctively – but evidently in many cases adequately to the reality?, etc.

Including so “Time” , “Space”, “Energy” , “Logical Rules” are absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions - the “Logos” elements, while “Matter” and “Consciousness” are some informational systems/elements in the Set.

At that, again – see the conception – any system is something like computer, i.e. consists of some elements [concrete i-patterns that compose a system] , which compose “hardware” , and “soft/program shell” that is a set of fundamental in the system laws/links/constants that govern states and interactions of hardware elements in the system, just so a system is as it is.

At that concrete informational patterns absolutely obligatorily exist in concrete patterns/the system’s space, which is composed/has a number of “space dimensions” the number and nomenclature of the dimensions is determined by number and nomenclature of independent degreases of freedom of the patterns at changing their states.

Matter and any consciousness are fundamentally different systems, since are governed at evolution/operation by fundamentally different sets of different basic laws/links/constants, and, since all concrete patterns/systems in Matter are constructed from some basic “primary” binary reversible fundamental logical elements, in Matter everything exists and happen in concrete Matter’s utmost universal spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, 4D space in [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where ct is that time dimension.

Matter’s spacetime fundamentally differs from the concrete space, where “consciousnesses on Earth” exist and operate, since these systems are composed by different “primary elements” that exist and change in quite other nomenclature of space dimensions – say, again, see SS posts on page 1 – when a human [any other living being, though] see a star, the star really exists in Matter’s space, and by no means appears in corresponding brain – in the brain, more correctly in the system “consciousness” that resides on the brain, fundamentally different from real star informational pattern “the star’s image” appears in the concrete consciousness’s space that fundamentally differs from Matter’s space.

Etc., including, say, the fundamental difference above by no means is an “axiom presented without justification” - that rigorously follows, from the real experimental observations, say, see above, though here can be any number of other corresponding examples of corresponding “fundamental properties of existence”.

The rest in your posts, which looks as some objections to the “The Information as Absolute” conception consciousness model, also are questionable; comments would be rather long, so repeat again the tenet that should govern any scientist at consideration of any really fundamental task: any consideration can be really scientific only if is based on really scientific knowledge about what at least the pointed above fundamental phenomena/notions are.

Cheers

Sergei,

I thank you for your detailed exposition of the principles of your theory. Your response has been extremely illuminating, not for what you say, but for what you omit.

You claim that your theory is based on "real experimental observations," but you present none that justify its fundamental axiom: the ontological division of reality into "closed information" (Matter) and "open information" (Consciousness). You criticize my questions, but you avoid answering the central questions that every scientific theory must address: falsifiability and the mechanism of interaction. Unless your theory only applies to the pure and profound activity of philosophizing, I respect you. That would be disrespectful to science.

You have built a theoretical ship. It is very elegant, sailing in the heavy and dense waters of its own internal logic, yes. But, as you yourself admit, you cannot explain how it reached the shore of material reality, nor how it interacts with it, except through "unknown forces." We've made it clear that this is the reality, so, Sergey, how do you propose that your theoretical model is compatible with the functionalism of William James (psychology), Émile Durkheim, Bronislaw Malinowski, and Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown (social sciences) if you can't reach the shore or explain how it got there? My criticism is that your ship, impressive as it is, carries an anchor heavier than the ship itself: the weight of unanswered questions that no researcher can, therefore, evade. Everything revolves around sociology, because if you create a theory, whether scientific or philosophical, tell me, to whom is it addressed? To humans or to plants and animals? No matter how coherent your theory is, it doesn't fit into the scientific world without concrete explanations, solutions, or responses to criticisms. Because, unfortunately, that's how progress is made.

My work, on the other hand, although young, incomplete, imperfect, and developing, is based on a different principle. I don't claim to possess the definitive truth. I intend to build a vehicle that can be tested, even if it is destroyed a thousand times in a row. That's how you move forward. In the real world, you can't move forward if the mother and father (philosophy) spend their time hiding and justifying the mischief of their child (science), since the child has to be better than their own parents in values, actions, and contributions, even though in practice that may be the opposite.

My theory of the Phenomenological Trace proposes a hypothetical bridge, yes, but a bridge that can be investigated, destroyed, and reinforced where it lacks strength.

My network entropy model proposes an experimental method to see if such a bridge actually exists.

My work is a promise of rigor. If an experiment proves one of my hypotheses wrong, I will accept criticism, correct course, and publish the correction. Because my loyalty is not to my ideas, but to the scientific world/method. My intention is not to be liked, but to do things right, and I have learned a lot in such a short time.

You ask me, "What am I?" My framework, at least, first attempts to answer the question, "How do I feel?" in a way that science can validate or refute. And I'm asking you, Sergey, and your colleague Vladimir, because it's also very important, as it's part of the debate. How do you feel?

I appreciate the debate. It has served to confirm that my work, with all the possible inconsistencies arising from my training, rests on a solid foundation: the promise to be serious about what is serious.

Good luck and success in whatever you succeed in.