All you've said beeing a hypothesis. We have yet to see proof of any of it.
A) We can't even define consciousness, let alone describe it's physical nature.
B) Even if it depends on quantum mechanics, it doesn't make it magic or unique to biology.
C) It's an extraordinary claim, so back it up, man.
I don't care about curious extrapolation, except in science fiction.
I DEFINE CONSCIOUSNESS AS THE INFLECTION UPON THE SUBSTRATE OF EXISTENTIAL BEING!
B) I say all life has some smidgen of this magic. It is non-classical and will not emerge out of complexity. All humans do not have “an equal amount”. Next argument may be of capacity.
The universe is the medium, consciousness the inflection, life the technology which animates.
C) voices in our heads. I know, I know, you don’t want to believe that either. Pay attention, check back in ten years. Hear them? Doubt we’re being screwed with? That old “master mind theory” from a hundred years ago touched upon this before our taboo of speaking of these voices dismissed them as crazy. Snail telegraph? There are clues throughout history.
We’re entangled, and it’s more of a hassle than a gift.
Your downvotes are your HYPOCRISY!
I have a whole long list of assertions you will fight me on for the love of your ignorance.
In this moment I cannot fully invest in exhaustive debate.
I will prattle on a little more in an unstructured form for the sake of intrigue.
There are several things going, one being this parallel discussion on quantum entanglement (and the parallel discussion for our minds being hackable for another time.)
I would like to describe to you the technology of consciousness in ways I have come to understand, yet I will expect to be scorned and badgered for the inherently abstract nature of our topic.
Neurons in isolation exhibit a telemetric awareness of one and other
The Cosmic Serpent was inspiring in my youth. The primitive ideas the author discusses relate.
Microtubul structures likely provide a substrate for our experiential being. Electrochemical processes flash these substrates, and then gently and delicately suss the state resolve as though a sieve + stack.
The sieve is the constructive /destructive aspect.
I say “stack” as resolve is apparently pushed and pulled or read/write like memories, yet I believe this is where our non-classical thought strategy arises. The outcome is more like a micro-inference rather than a faithful memory.
Constructive and destructive patterns form an analog isolated holographic “image” (though not merely a picture, in every shade and depth of every experience we are capable of having.)
Any information can be pushed into this stack, yet interference collapses to associations (or novelty) producing a primitive psycho-emotional echo, other parts of the brain process into higher level responses.
Consciousness is not intelligence. Consciousness coopts intelligence as a tool for perpetuation.
How does this not sound like consciousness: “consciousness is the inflection upon the potential of our existential being.”
Existential being is any matter, yet all cold matter is dormant without animation through life or other technology.
The potential is the hyper-dimensional capacity of the carefully arranged atoms in our neural substrate.
Inflection is any perturbation of the quantum dynamic (which is usually pure chaos.) it is the atom in the universe which exists, the living system is a technology which extends and allows the aggregate scope of potential awareness and feedback.
The quantum layer is like an echo chamber for your jelly bag brain. This echo chamber is the material universe (which you are) echoing experience upon its analog subjectively scoped potentials.
See the idea, not the comment quality.
I always love to imagine how fun an exercise it must be for a writer to invent those dialogues.