One theory of quantum consciousness states that the processes that give rise to consciousness are too small for us to observe without disturbing them. This theory claims that quantum events happening inside structural microtubules of our neurons lead to cascades of effects that eventually end in our conscious experience. New Agers love this stuff, as it places consciousness firmly beyond the scope of scientific research and allows for "spooky action at a distance." Is this line of reasoning rational?
For a while now, physicists have been postulating atomic theories of matter, that is, they try to define an indivisible particle that is the root of all the substances we observe in the universe. Repeatedly, these physicists are proven wrong, an atom is shown to be made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Those subatomic particles are shown to be made up of smaller particles and so on. As we get closer to what we think is "actually" observing these particles that make up matter, we find more and more substituents.
Now apply this ratiocination to consciousness. In the past we thought that our soul (a lame approximation of consciousness) was located in the heart. Sometime along the line, someone performed an experiment and determined that even when I remove a person's heart, they can still talk to me for a short period. Therefore their consciousness must not be located in their heart. We can destroy certain areas in the brain, without damaging a person's ability to remain conscious to some degree. These areas must not be related to consciousness. Currently, the smallest substituent of the brain that we can reliably observe is the neuron. So we think that these cells must give rise to consciousness, since we have determined thorugh a double dissociation that it is in our head (i.e. if I cut my leg off, I can still think and feel and talk and take a Turing test). Proponents of quantum consciousness take this one step further, presuming that we will be able to study the sub-neuronal processes and be able to make reliable inferences about their effects on consciousness. This is a fallacy.
Quantum consciousness theorists presume that matter and consciousness are equally "real." This assumption means that whatever holds true for matter (in the realm of physics) should also hold true for consciousness (in the realm of the mind). This is quite an assumption to make. What if consciousness is a side effect of the processes of signal transmission that occur in our brain? Consciousness seems real because we constantly bathed in it--it seems to be tied to language, making it particularly hard to talk about. I would argue that consciousness is a construct of the electrical signals in our neural networks. Empirical data seem to point more in this direction. By which I mean, we do not have extensive (reliable) scientific data on the "spooky actions at a distance." We have no evidence for the persistance of consciousness after the cessation of firing in the nerual networks. We do not experience telepathy in any reliably testable form.
To use quantum consciousness to argue that we are all connected and one, so we should love each other and only do beneficial things cheapens both the idea of quantum consciousness and the tenets of most New Agers. We are all connected, by virtue of being part of the observable universe. We should do nice things for each other. These contentions, which I think are the main goals of most quantum consciousness advocates, stand on their own merits, without the need for appeals to the supernatural.