[I'm rediscovering this article again]

Here's where the author gets it all wrong:

...meanwhile, straight from wikipedia:

The author of the neuroscience article says that physical objects are not "observer-independent". I agree with this (observation always affects a physical system), but that does not mean that they are observer-dependent! i.e. If two scientists take the same measurement, they should get the same [observation-biased] result. When I look at the moon and you look at the moon, we see the same thing. The moon is not a creation of the mind. It is in fact observer-independent.

I'm not a neuroscientist, so I'm just stepping out on a limb here, but I would guess that neuroscientists stick to classical physics principles because they explain the observations well. Just like most practical fields of study today (fluid dynamics, geology, meteorology, continuous mechanics, and ecology, to name a few), quantum mechanics is not necessary.