"What you see with your eyes and interpret with your mind, is that the outside world or the inside world?"

My answer:
It is neither the outside world nor the inside world for this is a false dichotomy.

To view consciousness as arising from the brain is an oversimplification stemming from a flawed conceptualization. Instead the brain should be viewed as a medium or functional scaffolding for consciousness to propagate itself. As there is no coherent boundary dividing biology and not-biology all matter can essentially be viewed in this manner.

Individual interaction with the world can thus be understood as consciousness propagating through one medium interacting with consciousness propagating through another medium. This interaction can be reinforcing or destructive. Instead of an inside or an outside world there is simply the propagation of consciousness interacting with itself in increasingly deep and complex ways.

Orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’) proposes that consciousness consists of a sequence of discrete events, each being a moment of ‘objective reduction’ (OR) of a quantum state. The theory suggests conscious experience is intrinsically connected to the fine-scale structure of space–time geometry, and that consciousness may be deeply related to the operation of the laws of the universe.

There is and it is "computation". in that sense computers are alive only of a different make.
Nah Im more inclined to the software/hardware paradigm.
Orch OR sound like treating conciousness as an iterated function over a State Monad universe, even with the quantum flavor it looks deterministic
the simplest way to break determinism is getting a true random number generator as an input

In conventional views, the experiential qualities of conscious awareness are assumed to have emerged from complex neuronal computation at some point in evolution, whether recently in human brains, or at some earlier, but unspecified level of development. In these views, consciousness is an emergent property of complex computational activity. On the other hand, Orch OR follows the notion that OR events with primitive ‘experiential’ qualities have been occurring in the universe all along, in the reduction R of quantum superpositions to classical reality. Small superpositions lacking isolation would entangle directly with the random environment, rapidly reaching OR threshold by τ≈ħ/EG, resulting in non-orchestrated OR events. Each such event would lack cognition or any non-computational influence, but would be associated with an undifferentiated ‘proto-conscious’ experience, one without information or meaning. Such undifferentiated experiences are taken, in the Orch OR scheme, to be irreducible, fundamental features of ‘Planck scale geometry’, perhaps ultimately having a physical role as important to basic physics as those of mass, spin or charge.
...
What about Orch OR in non-biological systems? After all, τ≈ħ/EG happens everywhere. What kind of role might there be for it in consciousness elsewhere in the universe?

Very large masses can be involved in quantum superpositions, occurring in the universe in quantum-mechanical situations, for example in the cores of neutron stars. One might imagine that τ would then be ridiculously tiny. But EG could still be relatively small if the mass-displacement remains small owing to the uniformity of the material. But generally, by OR, such large-scale superpositions would reduce extremely quickly, and classically unreasonable superpositions would be rapidly eliminated. Whether such quantum systems could be orchestrated to have meaningful, cognitive Orch OR conscious moments is unknown

ORIGINS OF LIFE
An example is the question: What is life? – which is the title of that influential book by Schroedinger (1944). The current answer is, implicitly: that is ‘life’ which reproduces or replicates and is subject to natural selection.

But this answer includes viruses, phages and prions – which hardly seem to be ‘alive’ in that they lack a dynamic metabolism; and also some forms of crystal – which are usually regarded as certainly not-alive (Cairns-Smith, 1990). Furthermore, some economic theories and computational programmes explicitly use the mechanisms of natural selection - and these are not regarded as part of biology.

Strikingly, there has been no success in the attempts over sixty-plus years to create life in the laboratory under plausible ancestral earth conditions – not even the complex bio-molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids. It has, indeed, been well-argued that this is impossible; and that ‘living life’ must therefore have evolved from an intermediate stage (or stages) of non-living but evolvable molecules such as crystals – perhaps clays (Cairns-Smith, 1987). But nobody has succeeded in doing that in the lab either, despite that artificial selection can be orders of magnitude faster than natural selection.

Since there is no acknowledged boundary dividing biology and not-biology, then it would seem that biology as currently understood has zero validity as a subject. What are the implications of our failure to divide the living from the non-living world: the failure to draw a line around the subject? Well, since there is no coherent boundary, then common sense leads us to infer in that case either everything is not-alive or everything is-alive. If nothing is-alive, not even ourselves, there seems to be no coherent possibility of us knowing that we ourselves are not-alive, or indeed of anything knowing anything – which, I take it, means we should reject that possibility as a reductio ad absurdum.

Alternatively, the implication is that if anything is-alive, then everything is-alive, including the mineral world – so we dwell in a wholly animated universe, all that there is being alive but – presumably – alive in very different degrees and with different qualities of life. This inference I intend to regard as valid: it will be my working metaphysical assumption, and is one to which we will return later.

It has to be one or the other othwerise, you deny that inside and outside world exists.

If consciousness arises from the brain as a property of matter, then there is no inside world, and everything is deterministic.

If counsciousness is separate from matter and exists in another plane, then there is no outside world, and only what is experienced exists.

So which one is it?

Also the big paradox about consciousness is that you have to use consciousness to explain it, and that is circular logic.

What's your opinion on that?

On Iterative functions. they are either deterministic stable, or chaotic unstable and are immune to randomness in inputs. I could accept that the wiring of the brain creates an Iterative Function system that its attractor-functor is the conciousness. But it's emergence would still be a predetermined by the wiring, not by quantum randomness.
Also take note also that no quantum feedback is possible. Ie the brain cannot receive states in superposition, in effect that means that conciousness cannot get quantum input only classical. Any states in superposition are within the brain itself. So that kinda breaks the iterative reduction process because the reduction has already happened by the sensors (at least for external input). 

I like the logo and this is a cause I am comfortable supporting. Please let us know when you launch this. I will make an investment.