Towler's lectures are very good in spite his "celebrity nutjob" comment. As far as I know David Bohm never used the term "back-action" or "feedback control loops" to explain qualia in consciousness, although he did have the back-action idea - I got it from him - he did not connect those two dots in that way.  That is my original contribution. Perhaps Basil Hiley can clarify that for the record?
Gathering material for 2nd edition of my book Destiny Matrix I found:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm8.pdf
Acknowledgements
The material in this lecture is largely derived from books and articles by David Bohm, Basil Hiley, Paavo Pylkkannen, F. David Peat, Marcello Guarini, Jack Sarfatti, Lee Nichol, Andrew Whitaker, and Constantine Pagonis. The text of an interview between Simeon Alev and Peat is extensively quoted. Other sources used and many other interesting papers are listed on the course web page:

www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/∼mdt26/pilot waves.html
Living matter and back-action In certain dark corners of the internet, can find speculation of the following nature:
• Propose the wave function/pilot wave is intrinsically ‘mental’ and capable of qualia. • Equate the pilot wave with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the particles are ‘matter’, and ‘mind’ the pilot wave. OK, who cares, except..
• ‘Mental’ aspect of universe upgradeable to life/consciousness by self-organization. Happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization.
• In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: system configures itself so as to set up its own pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration, which then affects its non-local pilot wave, which affects the configuration etc..
• Normally in QM this ‘back-action’ is not taken into account. The wave guides the particles but back-action of particle onto wave not systematically calculated. Of course, the back-action is physically real since particle movement determines initial conditions for next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to characterize such feedback. One reason this works in practice is that for systems that are not self-organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.
Well, it’s not obviously wrong..!
Two-way traffic
Important to note that pilot-wave theory does not take into account any effect of individual particle on its own quantum field (though Bohm and Hiley briefly sketch some ideas about how this might happen, see e.g. Undivided Universe pp. 345-346).
• Idea that particles collectively affect quantum field of a single particle is contained in the standard notion that shape of quantum field of a particle is determined by shape of environment (which consists of many particles, and is part of the boundary conditions put into the Schrodinger equation before solving it, even in conventional QM).
• Celebrity nutjob Jack Sarfatti (see e.g., er.. http://www.stardrive.org) in particular has emphasized the need for an explanation of how the individual particle influences its own field and has proposed mechanisms for such ‘back-action’, also emphasizing its importance in understanding the mind- matter relationship and how consciousness arises (see earlier slide).
• Assuming that notion of such an influence of the particle on its field can be coherently developed, we can then have two-way traffic between the mental and the physical levels without reducing one to the other. Role of Bohm’s model of the quantum system then would be that it provides a kind of prototype that defines a more general class of systems in which a field of information is connected with a material body by a two-way relationship.
• Quantum theory is currently our most fundamental theory of matter and Bohm suggests that, when ontologically interpreted, it reveals a proto-mental aspect of matter. This is the quantum field, described mathematically by the wave function, which is governed by the Schrodinger equation. Bohm’s suggestion is known as panprotopsychism.. so at least you learned a new word today..!