Im not a expert in that field. But even then I dare to judge that the abstract reads as if it is AI generated buzzword bingo.

@HartmutBraun I'm not a expert too but if you go into the paper, it makes me wonder, how did the author write so much! Like he has no expertise, no speciality in the field, and the paper has been actually recommended on researchgate by a random physicist too. How is this even possible?

You can probably find questions about this already asked at SE.Philosophy, SE.Physics, SE.AI, and perhaps other sites too. As for that specific paper, it's pretty incoherent.

Any paper that includes the term "quantum physics" and does not feature any maths can be immediately disregarded as nonsense. As for how he managed to produce such an impressive amount of text about a topic he knows nothing about: gocomics.com/saturday-morning-breakfast-cereal/2020/10/12

To me it seems beguiling nonsense, none of the many terms are defined but are presented as "terms of art" and from so many fields... impressive synthesis of power-words - many (not all) lack any clearly defined meaning. Reasoning by analogue, interesting but unfalsifiable philosophical positions, a few Latin/Sanskrit/Greek definitions thrown-in to add intellectual credibility, history of Philosophy, paleo-anthropology, paleo art interpretation, pseudo-scientific jargon, paleo-linguistics (assumptions), mystical powers attributed to body parts. it goes on. Beguiling pretentious nonsense.

Continued. It's not clear what the author is saying as everything is couched in such impenetrable jargon - yes jargon, that the thing lacks logical coherence. It can be dismissed on that basis alone. It's not clear what the claim is - there's nothing substantive being claimed, just a philosophical position supported by verbose poetry.

@ARogueAnt do you think his sentences make sense if you remove those unnecessary paragraphs he's put in between?

How do you separate the wheat from the chaff? Which sentences do you mean?

@ARogueAnt any sentence, let's say from the 'Tension Domain' portion of the paper. I don't know physics but if you remove the uncessary brackets he puts, does the sentence make sense grammatically? I don't know if it does by physics

Which of the seven times that the phrase is used might you be referring to? Rather than a discussion in the comments, please add the relevant quote to the body of the question - comments tend to not stick around long here.

The author dances around the phrase without defining the parameters of its meaning, nothing wrong with dancing per se, but what's the claim?

The paper does not actually come to any real conclusion. It's last paragraphs merely state alternatives.

Another warning feature: Published in the Open Access Library Journal.

The paper appears to explicitly reject quantum theory as a basis: "it is fashionable to consider Quantum Mechanics as a replacement for the phrase 'anything goes' and once anything goes, you can have anything you want, including a Quantum Mind". Then again, it also includes the phrase "its body is the rod (normal fish) and the line (soluble fish)", so maybe the whole theory exists in multiple parallel versions of itself, existing within the framework of its own auto-generative pseudoscientific confabulation.

@IMSoP this „fashionable“ statement clearly indicates that the author hasn’t got a clue about QM. I stick to my previous comment that this is computer generated text.

@HartmutBraun Hartmut: This is an unsubstantiated opinion and is off-topic here. Please avoid posting such as comments.

@user141592 This is also unsubstantiated opinion. Please don't post it as a comment.

I voted to close because the question doesn't clearly specify a claim.

I literally specified a claim

Is there a standard for notable though? The journal it was published in is impact factor 0.62 which in my field at least is junk publishing and would not be counted as worthy of note.

Also, "Does it really affect the brain as this paper has written" is a very open ended question when the document is a 49 page speal. "Is there a cosmogonic relationship-based alternative explanation of the mind-brain-body system non-linear dynamics" would be closer, but it is such an open ended stream of poorly defined buzz words it would also probably be closed.

Would you be ready to dismiss a paper if the person who's writing it has no expertise in the field ?

I'd read the paper and judge it on it's merits. The merits of this paper might inspire a science fantasy story or two. Cont...

Continued. There's an old saying which is coincidentally the motto of the Royal Society, it goes Nullius in verba, meaning "take nobody's word for it" - i.e. question everything and figure it out for yourself and above all, don't fall into the trap of thinking something must be right just because someone you like/respect/fancy/has a reputation has said it.