@fresco,
No it is not.
Let's take it step by step. In what sense is consciousness a necessary aspect of all matter? In the sense that any reference to a material event is a reference to an imagined conscious event. So if I go back to the early universe when matter and energy were in equilibrium I go back to a universe which is defined by my consciousness of radiation and matter etc. Now actually it is a negated consciousness so here we have to be careful. But I think that there is good reason to declare the negation a kind of distortion. But that is irrelevant for this as you already are stipulating the necessity so I will also and not argue it further.
But lets assume that such a universe had occurred and that I found myself in it. It was a parallel universe to ours identical in every aspect except one - there were no organic life forms. Let us further assume that I could walk around in this world and my perspective would change just as it does now- now after the planet had formed - I could "turn my head" in the sense that I could perform an act of will that rotated my perspective. I could also move things and set up experiments. However, when I looked down or in a mirror there was no body. Nor were there animals nor plants nor biology of any kind. I was sort of like an invisible non-material being.
In that world consciousness would in fact be necessary for material existence just as it is now. I could still do the physics to test the background radiation and the cosmic abundance of helium and hydrogen and the Hubble constant. But there would be no evidence that matter was necessary for consciousness as there was no evolution of an organic system. I could not undergo anesthesia as there would be no vein to inject it in nor a brain for it to operate in.
But we don't live in that world. In our world there are evolved organic systems and our consciousnesses can be affected by manipulation our brains. Now there is no "proof" that consciousness evolved from matter in a mathematical sense because it is an empirical fact and empirical facts cannot be proved. There is however scientific "proof" in the standard sense of the collection and review of scientific evidence in the facts of the biology of evolution and in the fact of the association of our consciousness with our bodies and with the material causality that occurs.
You say Bohm argues that "consciousness is a necessary aspect of all matter, not vice versa". If by necessary he means logically necessary he is correct. But physical law restricts logic. A ball dropped need not logically fall. But it necessarily does according to physical law. In the same sense consciousness in order to have consciousness one needs to create a certain kind of material body - in fact. And to argue "not vice versa" as you say would be to neglect the evidence of biology. If you want to have a kid what do you do? Why? If there is really no connection why do you have sex in order to have a child?!
I am saying the difference between these worlds is real. I am not just restating materialism. Both worlds are material. Only one has evolution. Just because consciousness is necessary for matter in the sense of the structure of Being does not mean that matter is, or is not, necessary for consciousness in the scientific sense. Only by observation have we in fact determine that it is.
Now you might claim that consciousness exists in all matter in the sense that rocks themselves are conscious. I think that that is a violation of Ocham's razor. I believe that to assume either that others are not conscious really (zombies) or that matter (unorganized into a body) is is to violate if not Ocham's razor at least something similar. The burden of proof would be on you to show that matter itself (unorganized into a body) is conscious, not the other way around.
If Bohm argues the "not vice versa" and he means by "proof" the collection of overwhelming scientific evidence then he is simply wrong. You can see this by asking the simple question of what you must do to have a child.
