CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Free Will and AgencyQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

The collapse of the wave function as the mediator of free will in prime neurons

Open access
Loboguerrero, Diego A.·2025·Frontiers in Neuroscience
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2025.1637217PMC PMC12408569
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In our current view of reality, free will hangs on two opposing forces. On one side, we have determinism, which states that everything is already determined by our inner constituents, the atoms and molecules that form our bodies. On the other side, we have quantum mechanics and its view that everything in the quantum world is inherently random and probabilistic. None of these perspectives gives rise to the phenomenon of what we call free will, but here in this article, we provide an underlying mechanism for how free will should operate in our world. We propose that the collapse of the wave function is responsible for determining our free will in prime neurons. The collapse of the wave function is the process by which a particle passes from a state of superposition or being in several places at the same time to a definitive state with clearly established properties. Prime neurons are a class of neurons that are responsible for initiating a thought process or an action in our brains. But for this to operate, the collapse of the wave function must not act on regular matter, for that would yield a purely random result. We need a new and hypothetical particle, for which we have placed the term “soul/spirit particle.” This soul/spirit particle has very specific features, as we have discussed in this article, and we have provided a mathematical model to explain its interaction with our inner physiology.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper proposes that wave function collapse, mediated by a hypothetical “soul/spirit particle” acting on “prime neurons,” can account for free will without falling into determinism or randomness. It offers a speculative mathematical model and proposed experimental tests, but reports no empirical results.

Key findings

  • Proposes that the collapse of the wave function (CWF) is the mechanism for free will, but only if it is guided by a hypothetical soul/spirit particle (SSP) that collapses according to will or intentionality rather than randomly.
  • Defines “prime neurons” (PN) as neurons that initiate a thought process or action, possibly detectable as neurons firing spontaneously without an apparent trigger; cites Schurger et al. (2012) spontaneous neural activity before the readiness potential as a possible hint.
  • Describes SSP properties: neutral or hidden charge, exotic or higher-dimensional spin, extremely low or zero mass, interaction weaker than the weak nuclear force, and extreme resistance to quantum decoherence; it may exist in additional dimensions.
  • Presents a mathematical model with a soul-particle operator, coupling constant \(g\), intentional influence \(\lambda\), entropy reduction, and a collapse operator; states that \(g\) must be determined in future experiments.

Methods

  • Theoretical/conceptual paper based on literature review and hypothesis generation; no experimental sample, data, or empirical results are reported.
  • Proposes a mathematical framework integrating quantum mechanics and neuroscience, including neuron superposition states \(|0\rangle\) and \(|1\rangle\), a soul-particle operator, collapse equations, entropy equations, and neural-network equations.
  • Suggests future tests using fMRI/EEG and single-neuron recordings for spontaneous activation, superradiance/coherence in voltage-gated channels or microtubules, double-slit analogues in brain tissue, entanglement, calorimetry, altered consciousness, artificial-intelligence comparisons, and entropy measurements.

Limitations

  • The author states that many assumptions are being made, that the SSP’s existence and location are unknown, that \(g\) must be determined in future experiments, and that testing the hypothesis will be challenging.
  • Evident from the text: there is no empirical validation, no sample, and no reported outcomes; the central particle and prime neurons remain hypothetical.
  • Evident from the text: the mathematical equations are referenced but not fully rendered in the provided text, so the model cannot be evaluated from this text alone; the preference for the Copenhagen interpretation over many-worlds is also argued partly on non-empirical theological grounds.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnins.2025.1637217

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 22 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Interpretationreasoning

    The collapse of the wave function will activate or deactivate the propagation of an action potential in a given neuron.

    “The end conclusion is the same in all these cases: the CWF will activate or deactivate the propagation of an action potential in a given neuron.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Interpretationreasoning

    Voltage-gated channels can exist in a superposition of states before settling into a classical state by the collapse of the wave function.

    “These states can be in a superposition of states. When a choice happens by the will of a person, this channel may open or close based on the role of that channel or that neuron in defining our will. They exist in a superposition of states before settling into a classical state by the CWF.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Neurons operate as quantum systems prior to firing, existing in a superposition of firing and non-firing states by the interaction of voltage-gated channels.
  • Interpretationreasoning

    The soul/spirit particle should have a neutral or no electric charge.

    “The first to consider is charge; the SSP should have a neutral or no electric charge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Premisecitation

    If we perform the double-slit experiment and concentrate our minds to produce a given outcome, we cause nothing.

    “If we perform the double-slit experiment and we humans concentrate our minds to produce a given outcome, we cause nothing, even though the role of consciousness is not defined in what is called the measurement problem.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Interpretationcitation

    Reduction in entropy reflects purposeful, non-random decisions made by the soul.

    “Reduction in entropy ΔS represents the system moving from a state of high-entropy (random) to one of lower-entropy (ordered) by the influence of the soul (Tarlacı and Pregnolato, 2016). This reduction of entropy reflects purposeful, non-random decisions made by the soul.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tarlacı and Pregnolato, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The SSP has a will/spirit that can intentionally influence neuron firing.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 40
  • May combine two claims. 12

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    If prime neurons exist, they should predict a motor output without sensory input.

    “If PN exists, they should predict a motor output without sensory input.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The collapse of the wave function is responsible for determining free will in prime neurons.

    “We propose that the collapse of the wave function is responsible for determining our free will in prime neurons.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The soul/spirit is distinct from physical matter particles but can influence wave function collapse.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Neurons operate as quantum systems prior to firing, existing in a superposition of firing and non-firing states by the interaction of voltage-gated channels.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The soul/spirit influences the superposition, collapsing the wave function according to the will of the person.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The effects of this collapse are local to the brain and do not extend to external quantum systems.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Lesions in the precuneus affect the sense of responsibility for one's actions, causing alien limb syndrome.

    “Lesions located in the precuneus affect our sense of responsibility for our actions, or what is called agency, and this lesion causes alien limb syndrome (Darby et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Darby et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The soul/spirit particle has the intrinsic ability to collapse the wave function according to will or intentionality, unlike regular matter.

    “The first and main feature of this hypothetical particle is that this particle has the intrinsic ability to CWF according to “will” or intentionality, not like regular matter, which CWF probabilistically or through observation/interaction; this is central to our hypothesis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The soul/spirit is distinct from physical matter particles but can influence wave function collapse.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The soul/spirit influences the superposition, collapsing the wave function according to the will of the person.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    For free will to be true, a quantum effect must occur inside our skulls.

    “For free will to be true, and we feel it to be genuine, a quantum effect must occur inside our skulls.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Free will is genuine or exists.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    What Libet and colleagues saw may be the first glimpse that a quantum process is operating in our brains.

    “Therefore, what Libet and their colleagues have seen in their experiments may be the first glimpse that a quantum process is operating in our brains.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The interaction strength between the soul/spirit particle and ordinary matter would be far weaker than the weak nuclear force, making it effectively unobservable through standard physical experiments.

    “The interaction strength between the SSP with ordinary matter would have to be far weaker than the weak nuclear force, making it effectively unobservable through standard physical experiments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The collapse of the wave function should directly alter voltage-gated channels, opening or closing the channels based on our will.

    “If I had to promote a mechanism, the CWF should directly alter the voltage-gated channels, opening or closing the channels based on our will.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Brain damage in the anterior cingulate cortex affects volition, causing akinetic mutism.

    “Others have tried to locate a region in the brain responsible for free will, and they have found that brain damage in the anterior cingulate cortex affects our volition, or our desire to act, causing what is known in the medical setting as akinetic mutism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Darby et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Free will requires that choices not rely on random factors.

    “we know that for free will to exist, it must not rely on random factors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The soul/spirit particle must have extremely low or zero rest mass.

    “Concerning the properties of mass, this hypothetical particle must have extremely low or zero rest mass.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The soul/spirit particle should have an exotic spin, such as a higher-dimensional spin state or a non-standard fractional spin number.

    “However, it may also have an exotic spin, like a higher-dimensional spin state or even a non-standard fractioned spin number.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A new hypothetical particle, the soul/spirit particle, is needed for the collapse of the wave function to follow a person's will.

    “We need a new and hypothetical particle, for which we have placed the term “soul/spirit particle.””
    • Also stated in: § Features of a hypothetical particle · plain
      “for the interplay to be in accordance with the will of a person, a hypothetical particle must be defined.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: A soul/spirit particle exists or can be defined with the proposed properties.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    There must be a single neuron that initiated the whole neural algorithm.

    “But even this is wrong because there must be a single neuron that initiated the whole neural algorithm.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Prime neurons are needed to initiate an interaction with the environment.

    “PN behaves this way; they are needed to initiate an interaction with the environment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    If the environment affects choices, then the will is not free.

    “Also, for a completely free will must be able to make a choice regardless of the surrounding environment. If the environment affects choices, then that will will not be free; it will be influenced by external factors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The soul/spirit particle's interaction should conserve energy and comply with physical laws, possibly by influencing quantum probabilities rather than adding energy to the system.

    “To fit within the current frameworks of physics, the particle’s interaction should need to conserve energy and subtly comply with any other physical laws. This might involve influencing quantum probabilities rather than directly adding energy to the whole system.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The soul/spirit particle must interact primarily or exclusively with the brain, particularly with neurons.

    “Secondly, it must be selective in its location. It should interact primarily (or exclusively) with the brain, particularly with neurons.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The soul/spirit particle should allow a two-way interaction: from soul/spirit to brain causing neuron activation, and from brain to soul/spirit allowing feedback.

    “The SSP should allow for a two-way interaction. First, from soul/spirit to brain, causing neuron activation or other physiological processes to facilitate free will, as we have discussed previously. Secondly, from the brain to the soul/spirit, potentially allowing feedback from the brain’s environment to the SSP, but we lack a mechanism for how this interaction should occur.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    For the collapse of the wave function to mediate free will, it must not act on regular matter, because that would yield a purely random result.

    “But for this to operate, the collapse of the wave function must not act on regular matter, for that would yield a purely random result.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The soul/spirit particle should have extreme resistance to quantum decoherence.

    “Another property of this hypothetical particle could be that the SSP should have an extreme resistance to quantum decoherence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In Libet's experiment, the readiness potential represents past neural activity, while the final outcome depends on a future measurement: the actual decision to act or not.

    “So, in Libet’s experiment, the readiness potential stands for the past building up a neural activity, but the final outcome, whether the person moves or not, depends on a future measurement: the actual decision to act or not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The brain is too wet and noisy for quantum effects to be prominent, but recent research has detected quantum effects inside brains.

    “It is known that the brain is too wet and noisy for quantum effects to be prominent, but our latest research has detected quantum effects even in the harsh conditions inside our brains (Simon, 2018; Willeford, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Simon, 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Willeford, 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Prime neurons are a class of neurons responsible for initiating a thought process or an action in the brain.

    “Prime neurons are a class of neurons that are responsible for initiating a thought process or an action in our brains.”
    • Also stated in: § Prime neurons · hedged
      “I hypothesize that there is a class of neurons that behaves very differently from the rest. These neurons are the ones that initiate a thought process or initiate a given action in our brains, like the movement of an arm or of our hand.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The collapse of the wave function is purely random and stochastic.

    “The CWF is purely random and stochastic, but the CWF portending free will must not be random, but rather upon a person’s will.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The SSP interacts only with the brain's quantum system, not external ones.

    “The SSP interacts only with the brain’s quantum system, not external ones, as we have seen.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The soul/spirit particle's interaction would not give energy to the system in the same way as a force, because it interacts solely with the collapse of the wave function with particles of regular mass in voltage-gated channels.

    “This interaction would not give energy to the system in the same way as a force would because its interaction would solely be with the CWF with the particles of regular mass in voltage-gated channels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The soul/spirit particle would create an interaction with neurons through the collapse of the wave function but will not alter our inner physiology or external environment.

    “It would create an interaction with neurons through the CWF but will not alter in any way our inner physiology, and even less our external environment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The collapse of the wave function that portends free will must not be random, but rather upon a person's will.

    “The CWF is purely random and stochastic, but the CWF portending free will must not be random, but rather upon a person’s will.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The soul/spirit particle should exist in a coherent quantum state.

    “The SSP should exist in a coherent quantum state, and its interaction with regular matter in our brains must force the collapse of this regular matter to what dictates our will on these internal quantum systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The soul/spirit is distinct from physical matter particles but can influence wave function collapse.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The soul/spirit influences the superposition, collapsing the wave function according to the will of the person.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The collapse of the wave function happens inside our brains, altering our inner physiology, not influencing our external world.

    “This CWF happens inside our brains, altering our inner physiology, not influencing our external world, as experiments of the double-slit experiments prove that we do not have external causation of our conscious mind (Walleczek and von Stillfried, 2020a,b; Radin et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Walleczek and von Stillfried, 2020a,b

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Radin et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Neurosurgical resection of the supplementary motor area gives akinetic mutism for a definite time, with recovery of volition after 11 days to 3 months.

    “They claim that neurosurgical resection of the SMA gives akinetic mutism as well, but for a definite time. After 11 days or up to 3 months, the subjects recovered their sense of volition, with only remaining difficulties in performing rapidly, alternating movements of the hands (Sjöberg, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sjöberg, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    If the theory is correct, the influence of the external environment on decision-making should be negligible.

    “This model explains that there may be an influence from the external environment in our decision-making process, but if the theory is correct, this influence of the external environment should be negligible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The SSP acts not only on individual neurons but also on prime neurons, thereby influencing complete neural circuits and neural networks.

    “The SSP not only affects one individual neuron but also acts on the PN. This would, in turn, influence complete neural circuits and neural networks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The soul/spirit particle's interaction with regular matter in the brain must force the collapse of this regular matter to what dictates our will on these internal quantum systems.

    “The SSP should exist in a coherent quantum state, and its interaction with regular matter in our brains must force the collapse of this regular matter to what dictates our will on these internal quantum systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The soul/spirit is distinct from physical matter particles but can influence wave function collapse.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The soul/spirit influences the superposition, collapsing the wave function according to the will of the person.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Some neurons fire without prior activation from other neurons due to wave function collapse by the influence of the SSP.

    “Our theory suggests that some neurons fire without prior activation from other neurons due to wave function collapse by the influence of the SSP; this assumption can be tested, first, by the use of fMRI or EEG to analyze neural activity and look for spontaneous neural activation that lacks preceding signals (Caspar and Cleeremans, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Neurons form networks, and firing of one neuron can affect many others, allowing influence to propagate through the brain's neural network.

    “Neurons do not work alone – they form neuronal networks. When one neuron fires, it can affect many others. The influence of just one neuron can propagate through the brain’s neural network.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Deco et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Brain-based quantum systems should exhibit deviations from expected collapse patterns observed in external quantum systems when experiments are done correctly.

    “Brain-based quantum systems should exhibit deviations from the expected collapse patterns observed in external quantum systems when done correctly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The SSP must interact with brain matter without violating energy conservation.

    “The SSP must interact with brain matter without violating in any way energy conservation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The brain should exhibit non-local correlations consistent with the influence of the hypothetical SSP.

    “The brain should exhibit non-local correlations consistent with the influence of this hypothetical particle.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    With the soul, neuron firing becomes intentional and reflects the will of the soul/spirit.

    “With the soul, neuron firing becomes intentional and reflects the will of the soul/spirit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The SSP has a will/spirit that can intentionally influence neuron firing.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Quantum effects like entanglement, quantum coherence, and quantum tunneling have been detected in other biological systems, like photosynthesis and bird magnetoreception.

    “Quantum effects like entanglement, quantum coherence, and quantum tunneling have been detected in other biological systems, like in photosynthesis and bird magnetoreception (Arndt et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Arndt et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Without the soul, neurons would fire randomly based only on probabilities, or deterministically influenced by the external environment.

    “Without the soul, neurons would fire randomly, based only on probabilities, or they would fire deterministically, influenced by the external environment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    What Libet et al. (1983) discovered could be evidence of a quantum effect in the brain.

    “What Libet et al. (1983) have discovered could very well be evidence of a quantum effect in the brain (Neafsey, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Neafsey, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Schizophrenia is known to harbor spontaneous activation of some brain regions, like those implicated in auditory hallucinations.

    “Conditions like Schizophrenia it is known they harbor spontaneous activation of some regions of their brains, like those implicated in their auditory hallucinations (Hirano et al., 2015; Rolls, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hirano et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rolls, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

45 of 45

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The soul/spirit is distinct from physical matter particles but can influence wave function collapse.

    “First, the soul/spirit is distinct from physical matter particles but can influence wave function collapse.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Neurons operate as quantum systems prior to firing, existing in a superposition of firing and non-firing states by the interaction of voltage-gated channels.

    “Neurons operate as quantum systems prior to firing, existing in a superposition of firing and non-firing states by the interaction of voltage-gated channels.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The soul/spirit influences the superposition, collapsing the wave function according to the will of the person.

    “The soul/spirit influences this superposition, collapsing the wave function according to the will of the person.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The effects of this collapse are local to the brain and do not extend to external quantum systems.

    “The effects of this collapse are local to the brain and do not extend to external quantum systems.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The current approach assumes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

    “Nevertheless, the current approach assumes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and if found to be true, will make the Copenhagen interpretation stand out from the rest of the theories out there.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Free will is genuine or exists.

    “For free will to be true, and we feel it to be genuine, a quantum effect must occur inside our skulls.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A soul/spirit particle exists or can be defined with the proposed properties.

    “We need a new and hypothetical particle, for which we have placed the term “soul/spirit particle.””

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There exists a soul/spirit particle (SSP) that can influence the collapse of the wave function in the brain.

    “The soul particle influences the CWF through a soul-particle operator H¯soul .”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The SSP has a will/spirit that can intentionally influence neuron firing.

    “W¯spirit represents the will of the soul/spirit and operates on the neuron’s wave function.”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent hypothesis proposes that wavefunction reduction within specific "prime neurons" mediates free will through a hypothetical "soul/spirit particle".

    “A recent hypothesis extends collapse-based interpretations of quantum mechanics to propose that wavefunction reduction within specific “prime neurons” mediates free will through the action of a hypothetical “soul/spirit particle” [49].”

    From Quantum-Inspired and Non-Classical Approaches to Consciousness: Models, Evidence and Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [49]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • SSP is said both to alter and not alter inner physiology

    Major

    The paper says the SSP will not alter inner physiology, but elsewhere says its brain-directed action causes neuron activation and other physiological processes. That conflicts with the proposed mechanism of free will.

  • Initiation requires a single neuron or may involve a group

    Minor

    The text says a single neuron must initiate the whole neural algorithm, while the figure description allows a group of neurons to initiate it.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Libet, 1999, Do we have free will?, J. Conscious. Stud., 6, 47

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Loboguerrero, D. A.
Affiliations
Universidad Central de Venezuela (VE)
Corresponding author
Loboguerrero, Diego A.
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2025-08-21
Volume
19
Pages
1637217-1637217
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnins.2025.1637217
PMC
PMC12408569
OpenAlex
W4413368723
Semantic Scholar
2acb7a5c148f37f43a35d70d3cf6122ab804e6f5
Cited by
0
References
81
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
free will, wave function collapse, determinism, quantum randomness, superposition, hypothetical particles, mathematical model, consciousness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review