Hi Jack. Thanks for taking the time.

I’ll focus on our main point of disagreement.

“As I understood Goff’s argument, he is not stating that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of matter, but rather that matter is an expression of consciousness”.

I cannot think of anywhere in the book where he says that, in those words or anything close. What you say next about consciousness being fundamental, and so on is, I believe, correct, but not what Goff is saying. His actual definition of his version of panpsychism is: “the view that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of physical reality” (p113). This is almost a word-for-word contradiction of your comment.

=

“Goff’s ‘nondual Pansychism’ declares that consciousness and matter are not two things at all. Consciousness is not a property of matter, and matter is not a property of consciousness. There is only consciousness, and some of the ways in which scientists have observed consciousness to behave, we have labelled ‘matter’. Matter is a human label we apply to certain behaviors of consciousness”.

Again I completely agree with you, but think you have reinterpreted what he is saying in line what you (correctly) believe to be the truth. Where does he say that? For him consciousness is a problem to be solved, which is the purpose of his book, not the only ‘thing’ there is. I refer you again to his definition above, where consciousness is a feature of physical reality.

=

“The panpsychist places human consciousness exactly where the materialist places it: in the brain” (p115)” “I’m pretty sure he is discussing classical dualistic Panpsychism, with which he disagrees. He’s describing that philosophy so he can demonstrate how his proposal of nondual Panpsychism differs from it”.

I’m afraid that I have to disagree with you completely here. I don’t know how we could prove it one way or the other, but I’m pretty sure he is describing his version of panpsychism here so that he can distinguish it from dualistic panpsychism. After all, would it be reasonable to say that a dualist panpsychist does not place consciousness in the brain, but thinks it of a different nature? The fact that Goff places consciousness in the brain, like the materialist, suggests that he does not believe, as you do, that the brain is created by consciousness. Let’s note that this quote occurs in a section entitled ‘How to Solve the Problem of Consciousness’. For Goff, consciousness is a problem, not your ultimate reality. As he says soon afterwards, “the central case for panpsychism rests on a form of inference to the best explanation” (p116). This is a philosophical, logical argument, an appeal to avoid the problems of the materialist explanation, rather than an acceptance of the ultimate reality of consciousness.

=

Ditto on your next point: “He thinks that ‘the fundamental constituents of the world are conscious’, but not that ‘every random arrangement of conscious particles results in something that is conscious in its own right’ (p113). Thus socks are not conscious, even though the subatomic particles that comprise them are. I suspect Goff is here still describing classical dualistic Panpsychism, with which he disagrees”.

Again what you say regarding socks and particles is correct, but not, I believe, what Goff is saying. Again I think he is talking about the panpsychism that he is advocating. Again this occurs in the section, How to Solve the Problem of Consciousness.

=

“As he says,’the main attraction of panpsychism is not its ability to account for the data of observation, but its ability to account for the reality of consciousness’ (p115). I don’t think he’s implying, however, that nondual Panychism does not account for the data of observation”.

In your observations which follow you use the term nondual pansychism. But again we don’t know whether by this we should understand your version of it (for which I think a better term is monistic idealism), or his, which you think (I believe incorrectly) is the same as yours.

=

Goff may think his ideas are the basis for a new science, but I don’t think that would be along the lines we would like, a true spiritual science. He is trying to accommodate consciousness within a fairly standard old worldview.

=

I am very happy to have a critical response; it’s the only way we can move forward, by having sensible discussions on important topics. I’m also hesitant to be critical of you, as we usually think as one. However, I still think that you have got it wrong on this one. From memory, I can think of nowhere in the book, not one quote, about consciousness behaving ‘mattery’, and the other Buddhistic and quantum physics ideas you have been expressing here. (If you can find one, please let me know.) I humbly suggest that you have interpreted Goff’s version of panpsychism (which is incorrect), possibly because of his frequent use of the word ‘nondualism’, to fit your understanding (which is correct). Here’s one quote which I think summarises his position well: “Panpsychism avoids the problems of dualism because it does not postulate consciousness outside of the physical world…” (p115). Nothing very Buddhist, or Jack Preston King about that!

I’d love to hear any further response you have.