The question of whether inanimate objects such as wind, asteroids, or even trees possess consciousness may seem absurd, yet it highlights a growing trend in contemporary discussions. If the threshold for consciousness is set low enough, one might wonder if public figures like Donald Trump or Marjorie Taylor Greene could also be deemed conscious.

It is perplexing why so many individuals are drawn to empty rhetoric. Perhaps it's the allure of sounding intelligent by reciting buzzwords, or maybe it serves as a conversation starter at late-night gatherings when even mundane topics seem profound. This month, the term “quantum” has resurfaced, reviving an old wave of pseudo-intellectualism that has lingered in the shadows of academia for decades. Had someone suggested “blockchain consciousness” before blockchain faded from novelty, we would likely have been inundated with articles linking the mind to blockchain technology. Instead, we are now bombarded with discussions surrounding quantum consciousness.

To progress, we must acknowledge a fundamental truth: the term "consciousness" lacks a clear, measurable definition. Consequently, it can be manipulated to signify virtually anything, rendering it meaningless. This ambiguity allows New Age thinkers to propose concepts like universal consciousness, positing that everything from rocks to rivers possesses awareness. To facilitate our discussion, let us adopt a rough definition: “consciousness is a state of self-awareness that encompasses an organism's external existence and its internal cognitive processes.”

Research indicates that human consciousness is limited and often flawed, existing intermittently rather than continuously. We may only be conscious 5% of the time, or even less in some instances. Paradoxically, many perceive consciousness as a binary trait—either fully present or absent. This misconception may stem from a lack of awareness regarding the inconsistencies in their reasoning, indicating a lower level of consciousness. This irony often escapes those who embody it.

When it comes to the term “quantum,” the public perception tends to equate it with mystique. Sci-fi narratives feature quantum drives, while journalists describe “quantum leaps” to add flair to their stories. However, in physics, “quantum” refers to the smallest measurable quantity, approximately 1.6x10^-35 meters—smaller than a proton's vibrational diameter at room temperature. Thus, hoping for a “quantum leap” is akin to wishing for an imperceptible change that goes unnoticed even after countless repetitions.

Alternatively, quantum systems can theoretically exist in multiple states simultaneously. This might allow our hypothetical First Officer to inform their Captain of various outcomes: having moved a millimeter, not having moved at all, and having retreated a millimeter.

Having examined the implications of “quantum consciousness,” we can delve into its historical context. Eugene Wigner speculated on a possible link between quantum mechanics and the mind, but his thoughts remained vague and unrefined. Before modern advancements revealed that “mind” is merely a transient sensation crafted by our brains for functional purposes, Wigner's musings faded into obscurity.

Roger Penrose authored a book filled with pseudo-scientific conjectures, disregarding the fact that quantum effects do not influence larger objects—anything bigger than a grain of salt or a human hair. His assertion that “freedom of choice” is contingent upon quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed. If our decisions are dictated by random quantum fluctuations, then we possess no real freedom at all. Penrose's tendency to cling to enticing notions while ignoring logical inconsistencies is a hallmark of his work.

David Bohm stands out as a significant yet accidental proponent of New Age mysticism. His unconventional thinking revealed that the vector potential of a magnetic field can affect spacetime in ways previously thought to be merely mathematical. Bohm's guide-wave theory was an attempt to explain the double-slit experiment without resorting to the absurd idea that the universe splits every time a choice is made.

Regrettably, Bohm's missteps in speculative physics are common among physicists who presume mastery of mathematics grants them the authority to venture into abstract realms. This often leads to the invention of personal belief systems masquerading as scientific theories, such as the notion of infinite universes where minor differences create alternate versions of ourselves. While these ideas may seem harmless, they often gain traction and are promoted as truths.

Today's advocates of quantum consciousness echo Bohm's early ideas, which themselves rehashed Platonic philosophy. Plato posited that our reality is merely a reflection of a higher, ideal realm. Bohm's writings suggest a similar notion: our universe could be a pale echo of a more perfect one, existing in a realm we cannot access.

Bohm's later work clarified that while our physical bodies possess feedback mechanisms to correct movements, our mental processes lack this awareness, leaving us unable to rectify significant errors without external help—help that is itself flawed due to similar cognitive biases.

At this juncture, readers may feel I am detracting from the enjoyment of the topic. To lighten the discourse, let’s embrace the current fascination with “quantum” and apply it to various domains, much like blockchain enthusiasts did not long ago.

Imagine quantum currency—where you possess wealth, owe money, and have nothing simultaneously. How about quantum bathroom scales that reveal imperceptible weight gains and losses? Or quantum cars that require no driving tests, as you won't truly be going anywhere?

We could even explore quantum video games—where you win, lose, and draw all at once. A quantum vibrating device might disappoint until the user realizes they felt something, albeit an infinitesimal sensation for a fleeting moment.

In the realms of biology and medicine, we could theorize quantum DNA, which collapses when sat upon, or quantum surgery, where a doctor might respond, “Yes and no,” regarding an operation's success. Quantum pills could epitomize the ultimate scam: “Look! Fifty quantum pills for $200!” to which the customer might reply, “I see nothing!”

As we engage our quantum minds, the possibilities seem infinite. However, this article must now conclude. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to our next discussion on the wave function before we all come to a definitive collapse.