I find his arguments congenial, but independent of the lines of evidence I adduce above suggesting that autonomous agents may optimize their capacity to make discriminations by spanning the quantum and classical realms, and do indeed do so. Phil Anderson has expressed very strong skepticism that quantum coherence will be found at body temperature in neural tissues. His clear concern is that thermal fluctuations will destroy any quantum coherence. While the point has clear merit, it may not be utterly convincing. In a system such as that envisioned in which work constructing constraints allows the ordered release of energy which itself is propagating work, the current constraints must represent temporarily frozen degrees of freedom.
Temperature is a macroscopic property of a system, averaged over a volume.
It remains very much to be seen whether the microscopic occurrence of frozen degrees of freedom, perhaps forming percolating webs as in the analysis of Boolean networks at the edge of chaos, may not have a local effective temperature which is low enough to support quantum coherent events. But cells are in fact carrying out propagating work attaining task closure to construct themselves and reproduce. Thus, again, it remains an open question whether quantum coherent properties can arise in such percolating webs of frozen degrees of freedom - or elsewhere in cells. Thus, the hypothesis that quantum events are important in consciousness is worthy of serious consideration. A possible experimental approach would use Drosophila genetics to select for mutants which are anesthetized by ether or CO2 at successively lower concentrations, and other mutants which require successively higher concentrations, then seek the genes and proteins involved in this increased or decreased sensitivity to loss of consciousness.