Apparently there are some versions of panpsychism that affirm that electrons are conscious. From the first result of "panpsychism" in Google https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

> According to the definition of consciousness that is dominant in contemporary analytic philosophy, something is conscious just in case there is something that it’s like to be it; that is to say, if it has some kind of experience, no matter how basic. Humans have incredibly rich and complex experience, horses less so, mice less so again. Standardly the panexperientialist holds that this diminishing of the complexity of experience continues down through plants, and through to the basic constituents of reality, perhaps electrons and quarks. If the notion of “having experience” is flexible enough, then the view that an electron has experience—of some extremely basic kind—would seem to be coherent (of course we must distinguish the question of whether it is coherent from the question of whether it is plausible; the latter will depend on the strength of the arguments discussed below).

If electrons are conscious, then they must experiment some kind of change that is related to the consciousness. One possibility is that they are conscious but they don't change at all, but then why don't just say that they are not conscious, because it would be totally equivalent. Another possibility is that the consciousness of the electrons is just following the usual laws of physics, but also it would be equivalent to have non conscious electrons. So, the interesting case is when the consciousness of the electron can affect the electron somehow. So the electron must have at least two secret states (or more) and the conscious experience must make the electron change between these states.

The rules of Quantum Mechanics for collisions say that when a particle has many states, then in the debris after the collision you must consider all of them. When the state doesn't affect the forces involved in the collisions it's simple because you multiply by the number of states. For example, quarks have 3 colors, so the probability of getting a quark after a collision is 3 times bigger than the expected probability in a universe where color doesn't exist. [The actual calculations are more complicated, because you can't multiply some probabilities of the fake colorless universe by 3 and expect that the total sum of all the probabilities is still one. And you must also sometimes consider interference too. There are many technical details here, but the idea is that somewhere in the calculations you must put some 3 here and there, or the result will be wrong.]

Electrons don't have color, but they have spin. An electron can have spin "up" or "down". If there are no strong magnetic fields, the 2 version of the electron are equivalent. So in the calculations you must put a few 2 here and there to get the correct result. [If there is a strong magnetic field, or the electron is moving too fast, or you consider the weak force the two versions are not equivalent, but for the sake of simplicity let's assume boring electrons.] [The quarks have spin too, so in the calculation you must put a 3 in some places and a 2 in other places, and there are a few more details that it's better to forget to simplify the discussion.]

So... if the electrons have some additional hidden states, then by the rules of quantum mechanics you must remember to consider the secret states. In the simple case it's just a multiplication. In more complicated cases, perhaps the altered state of the electron is more heavy and the calculation is more complicated. The author says that since we haven't seen this secret state in a high energy particle accelerator, it unbelievable that it may be relevant inside your brain that. Other possibility is that the hidden state is different of the other quantum states and doesn't appear in the calculations, but I think that this possibility is too magical.

--

As a simplified version, be can consider the Pauli exclusion principle that says that in any orbital you can have up to 2 electrons. It's the same number 2 of the other paragraph. You can put in the orbital one electron with spin "up" and one electron with spin "down", and with a few simplifications both electrons are equivalent. The interesting part is that this rule was discovered experimentally, but later it was deduced from the rules of quantum mechanics. So instead of a complicated calculation [that I only can do partially, and I don't remember the details now, so I need a week or two to find the books and look at the details] ... so instead of a complicated calculation you can count how many electrons you can put in an orbital. This is very easy, you get some hot Lithium vapor in a vacuum tube and some sparks, and you can measure the energy of the third electron. In the experiment you get the first two electrons in the lower orbital, and the third electron in the next orbital. All the Chemistry is based on these kind of facts, so the Pauli exclusion principle is very well proven experimentally.

And the problem is that in the Pauli exclusion principle you get a 2, that is due to the spin. You don't have room for secret states that may be affected by the conscious experience of the electron.