You objected to that statement.
What was your objection?
“My only point was that we don’t know what consciousness is, and it is intimately related to quantum mechanics.”
No it wasn’t.
“You objected to that statement.”
No I didn’t. I objected to this statement:
“we do not understand one shred of quantum mechanics”
Except to people with an axe to grind, that’s obviously false (notwithstanding Feynmann’s cheekiness). Just ask Faraday, Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, von Neumann, Durac, Pauli, Born, and Einstein, amongst countless others.
Oh, and I also strongly objected to this statement:
“we merely observe it and use the observations”
I don’t want to say that theory is fundamentally more important than observation, because of course theories are tested by observation and untested theories are useless. However, without theory there is no quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics IS theory. Whether or not theory rises from observation, it is not all observation. Which ought to be obvious to anyone who paused to consider that the same phenomena now explained by quantum mechanics did not go unobserved in the past.
There was always observation, but no quantum physics before quantum theories.