Mmmmm, no, the Standard Model is hard science. Even if you assumed that matter was "made of consciousness" you cannot make use of that assumption in explaining consciousness arising from matter in a brain. As only the properties of matter observed in the Standard Model can be appealed to at the energy levels in a brain. According to a professional physicist. Not my argument.
Are you saying the Standard Model is not empirically true???
> According to a professional physicist.
This is your fallacy right there.
Science is a process and method. If a professional scientist performs philosophy it does not automatically become science due to the persons job title. And vice versa.
Empirically verified physics, not philosophy, does not allow any properties of matter to be appealed to when trying to explain consciousness in the human brain other than those described in the Standard Model. You can assume that matter is made of consciousness or chocolate or whatever you like, but you cannot use that assumption in trying to explain consciousness in a brain according to the results of the Standard Model. Got it???
If you think this physical fact is not true, then explain why. Though I think your time would be better spent familiarising yourself with McDonald's menu for your future career rather than pondering difficult questions about consciousness...
At our current understanding of consciousness we have no way of observing its presence or absence except subjectively. So at this point there is no scientific way of either proving or disproving that a carrot have consciousness.
You may think it is "obvious" that a carrot does not have consciousness. Which is fine, but that doesn't make the opinion science. For what it is is worth I intuitively think consciousness requires a complex brain, but I recognize I cannot prove or disprove it given our current understanding.