Well, we don't have much better empirical evidence of consciousness.

Either way, I'm not sure that portion of the article is really framed as proof in and of itself.

​

>The Fundamental Nature of Reality
>
>I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.' Max Planck (Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist and originator of Quantum Physics)
>
>A paper recently published by The Institute of Noetic Sciences, founded by Edgar Mitchell, proposes 'that the hard problem arises because one or more assumptions within a materialistic worldview are either wrong or incomplete.' Simply stated, we have assumed matter precedes consciousness, when in fact it may be the other way around, consciousness may be fundamental and primary to all else.
>
>Many great thinkers have contemplated the idea that the physical world is somehow secondary to a hidden non-physical world. It is strangely reminiscent of Plato’s Theory of Forms which suggests that the physical world is not as real as the world of ideas. ‘Ideas in this sense, are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations’. Modern scientists have stated that the universe is a hologram, and simulation theory seems to be mentioned in popular culture with increasing frequency.
>
>The paper published by IONS contains several competing theories that deviate away from the materialistic worldview, these are referred to as non-local consciousness theories. Rather than consciousness being generated solely and purely from the brain, or locally, originating 'from physical substrates like neurons that have evolved to be more and more complex over time through adaptation, leading to the emergence of consciousness', these theories suggest consciousness emerges non-locally, or not purely from the brain, although 'both types of theories attempt to explain the underlying brain mechanisms of consciousness.'
>
>'Neuroscience today says consciousness is generated by and localized in the brain because it emerges from brain activity. Alternatively, [they] propose that consciousness may not originate in the brain, although some aspects of human perception of consciousness may be dependent on the brain. [They] also suggest that awareness extends beyond the brain. These non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness may be due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered.'

That quote is about if it turns out that consciousness IS in fact fundamental and primary (not emergent).

Your point seems to support the view that it would be a strange twist of fate...

Lol I know you didn't mean this, but I feel like I need to say that I don't think being "purely logical and scientific" supports materialism at all.

At this point, there is no concrete empirical evidence of consciousness and I think something like panpsychism is the least logically flawed explanation of consciousness, at least in theory.