It certainly seems like you’ve grappled with the hard problem of mind-body interaction that besets substance dualism. I still think there’s an Occam’s razor problem here. The brain is mighty complex, and it seems like neural interactions can account for the shades of awareness and for our various mental limitations. You damage a part of the brain, and the mind suffers in corresponding ways.

Abstract consciousness can look like a deus ex machina in this context. This reminds me of my article on how God would differ from nothingness. How can anything leave an “impression” on an abstract, immaterial background? How could immaterial consciousness work out probabilities? What’s the difference between an immaterial background and nothing at all? What would make this background conscious? Would this background consciousness have a personality? Is it male or female?

Are all of its thoughts bound by its interactions with quantized states and brains? If so, why say the background is conscious if it has no background thoughts or character? If not, how could each of its thoughts differ from the others, given their immateriality and timelessness?

These are just some of the standards doubts about a disembodied divine mind, and I wonder whether they apply to your model.