BTW, these fringe theories have no real place in modern QM. Nobody has demonstrated anything even remotely relevant to quantum mechanics in consciousness.
Here's what's science: have a hypothesis that makes predictions that confirm or falsify it, then carry out experiments to do so.
Here's what's not science: someone's subjective emotional opinion about what "has place" in science and what doesn't.
Also, Roger Penrose who recently WON A NOBEL PRIZE makes some very strong connections between QM and consciousness. Which you're clearly ignorant of.
So not only you're wrong about what science is, you're even factually wrong about what leading and awarded scientists believe and propose.
People like you, who decide what has "place" in science and what doesn't have called Einstein's Relativity "fake Jew science" back in the day, simply because (racism aside) they didn't like the complex implications of his theory.
Think hard if you actually care what science is, or you're looking to lazily identify easy enemies to call quacks based on keywords like "consciousness", despite you're clearly uninformed on the subject. An intellectually honest person in your place would take a step back and maybe even apologize.
I was a longtime scientist and have a publication record. I know what science is. I am intellectually honest. My area of study included quantum chemistry. I have researched all the work in consciousness and QM and so far, nobody has even the most basic of theories that woudl explain the data in a simpler way than existing, classical ones.
If you do some reading you'll see Hameroff (who cares about penrose) isn't operating in good faith.
I don't see your point about "fake jew science", relativity is very different from "the neural correlate of consciousness necessarily exploits quantum phenomena".
