deraudrl wrote:"We don't understand how consciousness works. We don't understand how quantum <whatever> works. Therefore, consciousness must be a quantum effect." Mr. Occam has apparently fled the scene.
That is exactly my impression, too.
For me it is very hard to imagine quantum effects for a neuron - a macroscopic object, thermally coupled to its surroundings. Quantum experiments are usually carried out under ultra-high vacuum conditions on much smaller, isolated systems containing only few degrees of freedom. See, quantum states are really very fragile, any interaction with other parts will lead to decoherence and ultimately wipe out quantum peculiarities. That is the reason why quantum effects are not part of our daily experience. It also explains why it is so hard to build a quantum computer.
Many see consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of a vast number (>10^10) of organized units (neurons) and an even much larger number of interconnections. It is many orders of magnitude beyond what we can achieve with computer-neural networks today. Therefore, a proof is out of reach now and probably will be for some time, and until then it remains merely a hypothesis, albeit one which does not involve doubtful ingredients to begin with.
As to intuition and quantum theory, they don't go very well together. Perhaps the best known counter-intuitive quantum effect is the double slit experiment, another, more intricate one, is the EPR paradox.