Does signal nonlocality solve the mind-matter "hard problem" as defined by David Chalmers?

Brian Josephson and Fontini Pallikari's paper on the subject "Biological Utilization of Quantum Nonlocality," and my Tucson talks on direct back-reaction of the hidden variables on Bohm's quantum potential in the presence of macro-quantum coherence in the brain ground state for a class of elementary excitations as the basis of conscious qualia, were anticipated by Fred Hoyle in his 1983 book "The Intelligent Universe" and by Fred Alan Wolf in his book "Star Wave" at the same time. These ideas are also related to Henry Stapp's Phys. Rev. A paper on Helmut Schmidt's retro-PK and to Roger Penrose's "orch OR" attempted explanation of the Libet "presponse" experiments essentially replicated by Dean Radin and Dick Bierman -- basically the same idea represented in the different interpretations of quantum theory. However, it is not emphasized enough, that orthodox quantum theory must be violated in order for these ideas to work. Indeed, David Deutsch has explicitly stated that orthodox quantum theory has nothing to do with human consciousness. In particular, the no-cloning theorem must be violated. Such violation also has implications for the debate on information loss through a horizon in curved spacetime described by Leonard Susskind. Antony Valentini has formalized the key idea as "signal nonlocality" when Bohm's hidden variables are not in thermodynamic equilibrium and the Born probability rule no longer applies. Valentini, however, does not apply the idea to consciousness. Guiseppe Vitiello and Walter Freeman do have a formal brain model based on macro-quantum coherence of a particular class of elementary excitations all occupying the same single-particle quantum state that they correlate to actual EEGs though they do not specifically address David Chalmers's "hard problem" on how to reconcile "qualia" with physics. The "hard problem" has all the signs of a philosophical pseudo-problem whose solution is implicit in Henry Stapp's distinction into intrinsically "thoughtlike" and "rocklike" fields in nature. Obviously, Bohm's quantum potential in configuration space for entangled systems qualifies as intrinsically thoughtlike with Bohm's hidden variables as intrinsically rocklike. Bohm and Hiley in "The Undivided Universe" show that the no-cloning theorem and the Born probability rule is not fundamental, but is a contingent artifact of the test particle approximation on the hidden variables. That is, the quantum potential pilots the hidden variable without any direct back-reaction of the same hidden variables on the quantum potential. Therefore, there is no self-organizing feedback-control loop and the hidden variables quickly approach the sub-quantal thermodynamic equilibrium required for signal locality in the presence of nonlocal entanglement (a.k.a. "passion at a distance" Abner Shimony). Of course, pumping a system as in Herbert Frohlich's electric dipole membrane model will change this situation as will the Vitiello-Freeman model using dissipative structures (induced non-equilibrium spontaneous Higgs-Goldstone long-range coherent breakdown of a continuous symmetry group in the brain ground state). The resultant phase-rigidity (P.W. Anderson's "More is different.") of the now local macro-quantum coherent ground state order parameter will have signal nonlocality "presponse" in its effective Bohm quantum potential that will faithfully track changes in the condensate material responses to sensory signals - the qualia.

PS All of these ideas trace back to the Wheeler-Feynman retro-causality papers of the 1940's formalized by Hoyle-Narlikar and John Cramer from the classical electrodynamics to quantum theory - and by Yakir Aharonov in his post-selected "destiny vector" analog to the classical Wheeler-Feynman "advanced potential."