Only signal nonlocality violating orthodox QM will resolve this.
The data from Libet -> Radin -> Bierman -> Bem
& Puthoff & Targ (SRI)
are evidence for signal nonlocality entanglement signaling (e.g. Antony Valentini's papers) as the essential signature of consciousness in my opinion. Nano-tech devices emulating microtubules et-al will result in a conscious AI robot in my opinion.
Henry Stapp argued that
1) statistical predictions of orthodox QM( i.e. Born probability interpretation aka sub-quantal HV thermal equilibrium as in A. Valentini's papers)
2) counter-factual definiteness
are mutually incompatible.
If Henry is correct, then you can have 3) and 1) by violating 2).
Indeed that is Many-Worlds in sense of Everett. It is what Joy Christian, David Deutsch and Murray Gell-Mann seem to believe.
In contrast the ABL paper assumes 1) & 2) and violates 3) which is the dominant view and is also my own.
Only strong entanglement signaling violating current no-go theorems will settle this once and for all.
I claim that the brain data cited above is evidence for the latter.