What God is to the Universe is what your mind is to your body

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know what a quantitative difference in color means to you, so I'm going with answer (a).

Okay, and the qualitative difference would be?  How would you go about establishing it? 

Calling arguably the most important property of any system in the Universe-- the capacity for subjective  experience-- arbitrary-- isn't really going to get you very far, as it is essentially a confession that qualia is so far from your world view that you don't even consider it relevant.

I'm not sure what metrics you used to determine that it was the most important property of any system in the universe.  Thing that has subjective experience thinks subjective experience is totally awesome.  Not only have you failed to correct the question begging nature of your previous comments, you've jumped off on a tangent that is, itself, a non-sequitur about -another's- worldview....par for the course.  I wouldn;t insist that we address this seriously (and yes, that means without amateurish logical misteps) if I didn't think it was either a. important, or b. relevant.  Your breathtaking ignorance with regards to my worldview is frustrating...if only because we've been over it so many times. The canned "worldview" shit doesn;t work on me or my comments..I don't know why you keep trying it, you've watched me and many others smack the logical shit out of people for saying the same thing for years now with regards to whatever their pet proposition might be...you're no slacker in that regard yourself......

QM is the system upon which all else we know of supervenes.  It is the most elemental level of organization that we currently know about.  That's not a trivial thing.

It is, in the context of a creature that does not exist on the qm scale.  Ask our resident physicist, if you like..or just google it.  Ultimately, I'm not commenting on qm, but your misapplication of invalid inferences -loosely based- upon your misunderstandings of qm.  

Okay, there's a chain of supervenience in physics starting at QM, then subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, chains of molecules, etc. right up to full brain.  Any of these levels could be the lowest at which the most elemental properties of mind emerge.  I do not know what level that is, and neither do you.  Brain waving doesn't work, because not all of these levels of emergence are specific to the brain, or even to integrated information processing.

Any -could- be.....but they don't seem to be, particularly so in the case of human beings...a context in which a discussion of those "lower" levels of organization is entirely irrelevant.  Brain waving...and at some point you';re going to have to confront the intellectually dishonesty which is fundamental to your comments here..in calling nuerology brain waving...is relevant to -human- qualia, to the emergence or existence of a -human- mind.  

There's nothing wrong with neurology.  It tells us a lot about how we think, and really shows how radically our experience can change based on brain function or changes in brain structure.  It does not, however, give us any useful information about what other systems do/don't experience qualia, or on what level of physical organization the elements of mind supervene.

It clearly does...and perhaps you should stop calling it brainwaving? This has been a common theme in all of our conversations regarding this subject...when you are -unsatisfied- with explanations or "useful information" you procede to claim that those explanations and "useful information" do not -exist-....... I;ve commented on this in the last few posts but here we see it again. You are unsatisfied with the explanations and information, for a host of reasons...some of which I understand, and some of which make me go wtf..they do, clearly exist..however...for you to be unsatisfied with them in the first place.

This is relevant to the OP.  If the elements of mind supervene at the QM level, then the OP is reasonably close to the truth.  If it supervenes only at the high-level organization of an animal brain, then the OP is wayyyy off.

It isn't, because the OPs comments were and continue to be incoherent deepities, regardless of what supervenes upon what, what's happening at the qm level, and any consideration of mind.  Reasonably close to the truth is, itself, a ridiculous statement.  There is no "close" to truth in reason.....you're thinking of horseshoes and hand grenades.