There was an interview with David Eagleman in the Sunday Telegraph this week. It was written by Nigel Farndale. He refered to Eagleman as "rock star" of neuroscience. I'm not sure what he meant by that - but I was struck by part of this quote by the engaging neuroscientist (I've highlighted the section):
“What’s happening in brain science at the moment is as exciting as the discoveries that are being made about the cosmos. Inner space and outer space. Maybe consciousness is a new kind of force, in the way that electricity or magnetism is. It might be that, as we explore the brain, we come to an understanding of consciousness as being a separate property.”
I'm guessing that he's referring to the early days of research into electricity and magnetism in the early 19th Century, when no-one understood them. Even so, no - it really isn't. It isn't helpful to suggest some unspecified "new kind of force" to try to sketch a way to explain consciousness. Understanding the concept of the mind has proven tricky - but you won't get anywhere trying to explain one unknown in terms of another that you're just inventing.
The nature of consciousness - or the mind; the stuff that makes you, you - hasn't been published yet, but it will be. And the explanation won't be based upon quantum-nonsense about cytoskeletal proteins, New Age-nonsense, multi-dimensional crystal-nonsense or "a new kind of force"-nonsense. The mind is subject to the laws of physics. It doesn't supervene them or whatever.
The brain is ~1.5 kg of neurons an' that in each of our heads. The brain isn't the same as the mind, but it's been sufficiently well characterised for us to understand the basis of the mind now. So the clues to the nature of the mind are right in front of your nose. Actually, they're just behind it.
Consciousness isn't simple, but it is comprehensible without having to make stuff up. It isn't as fundamentally weird and mysterious as some of the phenomena that we encounter - such as the enduring popularity of Simon Cowell.