Jonathan,
You say above that "I tend to believe that if we are being absolutely honest, people know that it's illogical to assume that everything in life makes sense."
This appears to support "free will", because, without free will, the end result would be predictable, and therefore "make sense". This is based on the assumption that "random" events are subject (why?) to some probability distribution, and are therefore, at least in a statistical sense, predictable. But free will really messes up the odds.
You also state that, indirectly due to Korzybski, "things change." and ask "Wouldn't it be more accurate, quantum-mechanically speaking, to say "changes thing" instead?"
Yes -- as Alan Watts pointed out, "it's raining" (western) vs "raining" (eastern) - no subject/object required.
So instead of "things change" we are faced with a consciousness that "changes things" and this is the "hidden volition" interpretation of quantum mechanics that I wish to attribute to the free will, hence unpredictable, aspect of the consciousness field..
You say: "So; the study of how the levels of abstraction arise and what states of consciousness are pre-requisites for different kinds of abstract thinking is quite germane to this discussion."
Jonathan, I conceive "levels of abstraction" as architectural entities, not mathematical, more like "nested dolls" but not fundamental. They are constructed from building blocks, either Lego blocks or forms drawn on paper or in your brain. They may be quite complex, such as the ISO Seven Level Communication Architecture ranging from the Physical layer protocol, through Data Link, to Network layer, Transport layer all the way up to Presentation level, where each layer may consist of multiple automata and supporting protocols. They are constructed with words, or symbols, or physical models, and I don't see them as mysterious.
And, per your question, "what states of consciousness are pre-requisites..."
I do not conceive of "states of consciousness", but in *one* consciousness, interacting with physically real (ie, massive) architectural (ie, multi-dimensional) structured entities. From the equations in my essay one expects the local strength of the consciousness field to vary depending on initial strength, local mass density, local moving mass, and self-interaction of the field itself. It may even be possible (almost certainly is) to create pseudo-stable configurations supporting local consciousness maxima, nevertheless I do not consider this a "state of consciousness", and feel the term is misleading. For most purposes of physics, the consciousness field can be analogized as a magnetic field with mass current replacing charge current and the filed interacting with itself, unlike the magnetic field, which only interacts with charge, and, being uncharged, cannot interact with itself. "States of consciousness" don't do it for me. On the other hand, "levels of awareness" does seem to have a utilitarian meaning. It's semantic, and we have not conversed enough to synchronize our terminology.
Thanks for the reference to "Drive Yourself Sane", I've ordered it, and I plan to look up your Quantum Biosystems paper. This comment continues...