He's on the right track, however he doesn't mention the combination problem which is the biggest obstacle to his view:
http://consc.net/papers/combination.pdfAlso I don't like his inclusion of randomness in his theory as it rests on a particular interpretation of QM that is at best unlikely.
I am also a panpsychist (or more accurately, a Strawsonian physicalist) so indeed I agree with him that the universal wave-function fundamentally and exclusively describes the experiential in the world.
So I mostly think he's correct, and much more correct than most "science-minded" dogmatic materialists, but I think he has a few details wrong (such as mere aggregation and systematized perception and feedback being enough for phenomenal binding). I don't think that cells are conscious any more than the United States is conscious or a rock is conscious. Only animals with a particular type of nervous system are capable of phenomenal binding (and therefore of what we call consciousness).
This post was edited by Voyaging on Feb 26 2015 01:48am