Mayagaia: It is possible that you are merely naive instead of being clever at obfuscation and the use of fallacious arguments? In hope of the former, I will attempt to explain my attitude toward your posts. To start, your post title has the classic format of a common fallacious argument, which suggested to me that you have some desire to convince people of the validity of panpsychism. Consider the difference in wording of the following two questions. Can pansychism be explained by QED and quantum consciousness? Can QED provide a reason for accepting panpschism? The first question implies that panpschism is a verified but unexplained phenomenon (analogous to gravity prior to Isaac Newton), and asks if its mechanism can be explained by QED. The second question does not imply that panpsychism is a verified phenomenon. I hope you understand the different semantic slant of those two questions. Furthermore, quantum consciousness (used in your title) is a speculative concept belonging more to philosophy than physics. The way it is used in the first question implies that it is a verified theory of physics as well accepted as QED by mainstream physicists, when it is actually similar to or a variant of panpschism. Due to its being closely associated with panpschism, this looks like a sublte attempt to provide panpschism with legitimacy as accepte science by implying that quantum consicousness is somehow associated with quantum theory. In my mind, this thread starts out looking like an attempt to pass off pseudo science or speculative philosophy as established phenomenon, using a well known fallacious argument and a semantic trick (the use of the term quantum consciousness). Your last post includes the following. To put the above objection to my view of your answers in context: My questions 1 & 2 were the following. What are the measurable effects of consciousness? If I ask one of my friends if he has consciousness, he will answer affirmatively. That is the only measurable effect of which I am aware, and it seems somewhat subjective. Does a highly intelligent person have more of it than a moron? Does a moron have more of it than a more severely retarded person? Your reply was the following. Questions 1.2: Actually For an answer about the effects we need a definition and if you think my previous posts was long you'll understand why I can't fit even the links to the body of concepts attempting to provide one for that ultimate enigma into this thread- but here's just one compendium for over 2K references http://consc.net/online.html. The URL leads to a list of articles/books which would probably take several weeks to read. Your last post implies that you actually offered opinions relating to questions 1 & 2. If you think the above is an opinion or a suggestion of an answer, you are very naive. Actually, the above reinforces my opinion that you are clever at obfuscation and the use of misdirection and fallacious arguments. It amuses time that you are trying to advocate a theory relating to consciousness and claim that it would require reading 2K references to provide a definition of consciousness. If this is actually the case, rather than a copout or an attempt to obfuscate, then the concept being discussed should be the subject matter of a one or two semester college course rather than a topic for an Internet discussion forum. The more of your posts that I read, the more I believe that you are either intellectually very naive or very clever at obfuscation.