**E**ven though we as observers might look at and objectively agree with other observers about the sources in the world, how observers subjectively

*feel*about sources is unique to our each lifetime of experience and development. Observers look at and otherwise sense sources and have learned about the objective properties of color, size, mass, etc. and are confident that other observers will agree with the same objective properties. This objective reality of sources is a very common intuition that observers share with each other and observers typically share that objective reality as part of a classical reality.

Sharing stories about the objective properties of sources helps observers survive because they can then depend on other observers as a source of experience to better predict the action of sources and people. Observers do not need to experience the red color of an apple to know that an apple can be red. They can simply look it up on the internet. In principle, all objective reality is knowable and so observers can discover everything about their objective reality. However, there are limitations to what observers can discover about their own subjective reality.

How observers subjectively feel about a source like a red apple is very different from how the apple objectively appears to other observers . This is because even though observers can agree with other observers that an apple is red, the subjective feeling that observers have about a red apple comes from their own unique lifetime of experience with red sources and their unique development of retinal pigments and sensitivity to the light that they see as red. The subjective feeling that observers have about the red color of a source is a fundamental limitation. An observer of themselves as a source is unique to each observer and those immediate subjective sensations can actually be any number of illusions and perception mistakes and therefore not objective at all.

An observer's objective reality discovers sources with properties that conform to classical and realist notions of space and time with largely separate Cartesian sources that only occasionally interact. This is the world of gravity and of Einstein's relativity and is an observer's outer life. In contrast, the subjective reality of observer unique feelings is a source of inner life that is a quantum reality that incorporates phase coherence. Quantum phase coherence relates sources to each other in ways that sometimes seem to violate the classical and realist notions of discrete Cartesian sources. However, it is the inner reality of quantum phase coherence that augments and completes the limitations of an outer reality of the purely classical realism of gravity and relativity.

Although there has been many discussions about what a neural packet of brain matter might be like [see Tegmark 2014, Tononi 2004, Hopfield 1982], there has also been suggestion that quantum uncertainty and entanglement cannot play any role in the neural packets of our brains. [Tegmark 2000] This latter conclusion is based on the the very short dephasing times that occur for neural spikes of action potentials, whose dephasing times on the order of several milliseconds are many orders of magnitude shorter than the dephasing time of a moment of thought, which is around one second.

Of course, there are others who have ventured into the ring of quantum consciousness [Penrose 1989, Stapp 1984, Hameroff 2004] and who have proposed various quantum schemes for the neural matter of our brains. Unfortunately, no one seems to have yet resolved the matter with any kind of measurement like an EEG spectrum.

Given the spectral nature of EEG brain waves, it would seem reasonable to associate the measured EEG mode line widths with the dephasing time of thought. Quantum aware matter packets will dephase with the EEG dephasing time and therefore are the modes of quantum aware matter packets. Spectral line widths of light and acoustics represent both the presence of chaos as well as the dephasing times for the spectral modes of the science of spectroscopy. Associating EEG spectral widths to neural packets dephasing instead of action potential dephasing now means that the mind, despite some chaos, does indeed function as a quantum computer.

Linewidths for the quantum states of spectroscopy are functions of both homogeneous as well as heterogeneous dephasing and dephasing times reflect the lifetime and linewidth of a quantum resonance. Assuming EEG spectral linewidths are truly representative of the homogeneous dephasing times of neural packets means that brain aware matter does indeed represent quantum superposition states. Aware matter particles are not electrons or ions but are rather fermion aware matter particles of bilateral entangled neurons.

In order to qualify as a quantum computer, the brain must show the superposition logic of qubits, which include quantum phase. In digital logic, a bit of information is either 0 or 1 and all computers are based on just such a digital logic as well as internet data packets. In contrast to digital logic, neural logic involves a qubit as a superposition of two states [||,

__|__] that are like the polarization of light, parallel and perpendicular. Although single qubits will also only be either || or

__|__, qubits entangle other qubits and that entanglement transmits twice the information of just two digital bits.

This is because two entangled qubits not only carry the numbers 0 to 3 as [||,||], [||,

__|__],[

__|__,||],[

__|__,

__|__], the two qubits also carry a binary phase factor that transmits 4 to 7 as [||,||+

__|__], [||,||-

__|__],[

__|__,||+

__|__],[

__|__,||-

__|__]. Just like light polarized at 45 degree is a superposition of 0 and 90, a qubit can exist as a coherent superposition of states and that superposition doubles its information content.

Moreover, the superposition of qubits in neural packets means that neural matter exists as high order states of coupled neural pairs as aware matter. That is, we can entangle the coherency of our neural packets with those of other people and sources and that coherency is part of our feeling. When I imagine going for a walk in the park, I form a superposition of many possible futures for that walk and yet I only realize a particular future when I actually am walking. Each of the other possible futures is also a part of my reality as memory but those other futures become decoherent with a rate of the aware matter lifetime of about 1 s.

*A**ware matter*

**as a Quantum Material**
The quantum wave equation for aware matter is particularly simple and so the wavefunction is simple as well. The EEG spectrum will be sinc functions (sin x / x), which is the Fourier transform of the aware matter wavefunction.

*m*= aware matter particle mass, ~3.2e-30 kg (matter equivalent energy of two synaptic impulses)

_{a}*Ñ*= aware matter action constant,

_{a}*m*

_{a}/ 2*π / f*

*n*= order of mode for aware matter source, 1 to 64

*t*= time, s

*f*= aware matter source frequency, ~0.5 Hz

_{a}*y*= aware matter wavefunction

_{a}*y*with dot = time derivative of

_{a}*y*

_{a}
This simplicity comes from the fact that aware matter binding energy is equivalent to its resonance energy and when that happens for a quantum matter, the quantum wave functions,

*y*, are mathematically very simple superpositions of electrical impulse frequencies. Therefore the proportionality is related to the mode frequency as shown and there is a reaction time,_{a}*t*, which should be around 0.5 s and is the linewidth of the mode. Thus, we do not expect the EEG modes to be transform limited but rather EEG modes will have the linewidth of a single human thought._{a}
There are many obvious ways to test the aware matter hypothesis and indeed, there may already be information out there that shows that aware matter could not exist. However, it is really fun to imagine how such a simple quantum material as aware matter becomes not only a part of our lives, but a part of every neural life. The existence of aware matter would be the unifying force behind all sentient life.

Although observers can in principle know everything about the objective properties of sources, much of knowledge also comes from observer subjective

*feelings*about themselves as a source. Although observers can understand many of their subjective feelings with rational thought, observers do have feelings that are beyond rational thought. Such feelings are a part of observer quantum aware matter and are subject to quantum uncertainty and therefore are quantum feelings.