1. Does consciousness play a role in quantum effects? (This idea is pretty clearly in the “woo” category, although there are physicists who seem to take it seriously, and dismissing it as monstrously improbable given that all evidence to date is that the basic principles of the universe operate at a level much lower than that of consciousness seems quite safe.)
2. Do quantum effects play a role in consciousness? (This idea—which of course needs some elaboration since in some sense everything is quantum effects, deep down—isn’t altogether crazy, though specific theories along these lines have been very handwavy and from what little I know not at all plausible, and personally I would be very surprised if anything of the sort turned out to be right.)
I think OP is entirely concerned with #1, but doesn’t make it explicit that #2 is not in view (and e.g. if I am understanding Volodymyr Frolov’s comment correctly, #2 is what he’s addressing, so at the very least it’s possible to think that the article is about #2 as well as #1). Might be worth clarifying.
I think there are two quite separate issues here.
1. Does consciousness play a role in quantum effects? (This idea is pretty clearly in the “woo” category, although there are physicists who seem to take it seriously, and dismissing it as monstrously improbable given that all evidence to date is that the basic principles of the universe operate at a level much lower than that of consciousness seems quite safe.)
2. Do quantum effects play a role in consciousness? (This idea—which of course needs some elaboration since in some sense everything is quantum effects, deep down—isn’t altogether crazy, though specific theories along these lines have been very handwavy and from what little I know not at all plausible, and personally I would be very surprised if anything of the sort turned out to be right.)
I think OP is entirely concerned with #1, but doesn’t make it explicit that #2 is not in view (and e.g. if I am understanding Volodymyr Frolov’s comment correctly, #2 is what he’s addressing, so at the very least it’s possible to think that the article is about #2 as well as #1). Might be worth clarifying.
That’s a valid observation, but my comment is about both of them (should we call them speculations at this point?)