In keeping with the fashion of Higher Ed journalism, we’d like to produce a long editorial acknowledging that a disturbing current of dissent against the Western Scientific Trinity of physicalism, objectivity and determinism has been noted lately in various philosophical circles (Nagel 2012, Tallis 2012, Doyle 2011) which shall be dealt with swiftly and efficiently by the verified methods of public pillorying, harmonic derision and academic peer reprimand. Unfortunately we find that everything which could be said on the subject from a philosophical perspective has already been said over 30 times in every conceivable combination of arguments and in every surviving human dialect including the Whanganui version of North Island Māori, which leaves us exposed to the risk of copyright infringement. In other minor news, several government-sponsored US and European research initiatives are starting to look at novel sensor technology and cancer pharmacotherapeutic applications of quantum biological effects, as part of a global push to understand the surprising ubiquity of such features in living systems (Palmer and Mansfied, 2013; U. Surrey 2012 Quantum Biology Workshop). The unexpected demonstration of robust entanglement, coherence and quantum computation in bacteria, plants, insects, birds, as well as human physiological processes has opened the door to the possibility that other exotic, non-classical features may also play a role in living systems. However, for the moment there is no reason to panic: according to most science experts, if a tree utilizes quantum superposition to photosynthesize but you don’t hear about it, it’s not really quantum. Considering the lengths to which the intellectual classes go to buttress their arguments for or against consciousness as an emergent property of the brain, it is surprising how little experimental data actually makes its way into these complex theses. If what is defended so vehemently is the supremacy of objective experimental facts over subjective experience and conjecture, then this prolonged cultural debate should routinely come with tables and statistical analyses. It is a curiously overlooked detail that such objective references are almost universally omitted by the Materialism Party, and treated as “inadmissible evidence” when offered by the opposition. But the Golden Rule being that “he who has the gold makes the rules”, nonlocal mind-matter interactions are a priori impossible, and no amount of “extraordinary