>Maybe this would leed us to conclude (proto-)consciousness is pervasively embedded at the most fundamental level of nature. I think it must be.
Why? You've presented no argument! This is just a declaration of faith!
>So why wouldn't a rock be conscious?
Indeed why not, but then again why would it be? This position is called panpsychism. It is hardly new, and hardly specific to QM. If you want to posit consciousness as a fundamental natural force, we need to be able to predict and measure it in all things, including rocks.
>Maybe because its composition and arrangement of atoms doesn't allow it to be a facilitator to quantum information processing like neurons.
Perhaps. Or perhaps a rock doesn't integrate information as much as a brain? That's what Giulio Tononi thinks [0], and at least his panpsychic theory has managed to collect some evidence (n.b. it suffers from exactly the same problem as QM with respect to mechanism).
Even if we buy the panpsychic argument (after all, why not!), you have made no argument for quantum mechanics as opposed to information-integration, or indeed anything else! None! Zero! Panpsychism does not imply quantum mechanics!
>In any case, i haven't and can't answer your question, sorry.
I appreciate the concession, but I'm afraid I must now insist upon a subsequent one. You must concede that your only reason for thinking QM is involved is because you don't see a reason why it wouldn't be. That's a bad reason.
>I actually consider this the most likely possibility, yes.
That contradicts your insistence of QM as the likely candidate for phenomenological consciousness. Either you think that assertion has merit, or you think it doesn't. Which is it?
>Already mentioned in my original post.
Yes, I was asking for things I might not already be familiar with. Am I to conclude that this theory hasn't made any progress in 15 years?
Why? You've presented no argument! This is just a declaration of faith!
>So why wouldn't a rock be conscious?
Indeed why not, but then again why would it be? This position is called panpsychism. It is hardly new, and hardly specific to QM. If you want to posit consciousness as a fundamental natural force, we need to be able to predict and measure it in all things, including rocks.
>Maybe because its composition and arrangement of atoms doesn't allow it to be a facilitator to quantum information processing like neurons.
Perhaps. Or perhaps a rock doesn't integrate information as much as a brain? That's what Giulio Tononi thinks [0], and at least his panpsychic theory has managed to collect some evidence (n.b. it suffers from exactly the same problem as QM with respect to mechanism).
Even if we buy the panpsychic argument (after all, why not!), you have made no argument for quantum mechanics as opposed to information-integration, or indeed anything else! None! Zero! Panpsychism does not imply quantum mechanics!
>In any case, i haven't and can't answer your question, sorry.
I appreciate the concession, but I'm afraid I must now insist upon a subsequent one. You must concede that your only reason for thinking QM is involved is because you don't see a reason why it wouldn't be. That's a bad reason.
>I actually consider this the most likely possibility, yes.
That contradicts your insistence of QM as the likely candidate for phenomenological consciousness. Either you think that assertion has merit, or you think it doesn't. Which is it?
>Already mentioned in my original post.
Yes, I was asking for things I might not already be familiar with. Am I to conclude that this theory hasn't made any progress in 15 years?
[0] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.34...