I don't really protest against your belief per se, but since you're making claims about reality that are designed to sound scientific when they really aren't, I feel compelled to voice disagreement, unpopular as it might be in this environment.
It's not scientific because it concerns subjective experience, i.e. qualia, which are not measurable or observable by someone else. All an observer can do is to observe how the subject reacts. We could either leave consciousness to philosophers (who haven't got much further than Plato did), or expand science to include subjective experience.
> What people think it might be isn't reason enough to postulate a hugely fantastical cosmological mechanism where so far none has been shown to exist.
Agreed.
> I don't really protest against your belief per se, but since you're making claims about reality that are designed to sound scientific when they really aren't, I feel compelled to voice disagreement, unpopular as it might be in this environment.
I'm not advocating any "new age" world view here. My position is similar to that of David Chalmers, namely that there is something which remains to be explained. I have no particular views on how.
As far as I'm concerned, "consciousness" is a bogus term that will disappear once we understand the brain better.
What is the evidence for this statement, besides the tautological idea that consciousness is necessary to make any measurements, if we consider "measurements" to be a conscious process?
I think that consciousness might be necessary to make quantum measurements, though. So did Eugene Wigner. This suggests to me that consciousness might have something to do with quantum mechanics at a fundamental level. Exactly what the connexion is, I don't know. I don't think it's helpful to point to particular quantum processes (possibly) taking place in the brain and claim they cause consciousness, because that still wouldn't explain how quantum phenomena give rise to consciousness.