Sure it seems that way but there are too many unknowns. First, and foremost, until we have a working mechanism, it doesn't matter how probable things look, we cannot assume a mechanism without evidence to a mechanism. I see your point though. But it's still only a hypothesis that it is molecular. Hey this is science we have to be "technical" about it.<quoted text>
Not fllowing the thread closely but I think it was appleboy who said that since a rock has just as many quanta as a brain, tben if consciousness was at quantum level the rock should be as conscious as we are.
Clearly consciousness exists only in matter arranged in a very particular way. Thus its the molecular arrangement of matter, not its quantum constituents, that seems to count.
But since all our definitions of consciousness are so vague anyway, I am not sure how fruitful this discussion is.
Second, as I keep saying, everything could have fundamental aspects of consciousness that require molecular networks in order to manifest and become observable to a sentient being. This isn't like introducing ferries, this is possible enough, not that it should matter what other possibilities we can think of when, no matter what, we have to establish a mechanism before we can say it has a molecular mechanism.
The rock may not have the ability to respond to stimulus but can you say we understand all the possible ways that "awareness" could manifest itself?