“I took Goff to mean that an immaterial mind as something existing separate from matter is magical and should be rejected”.

Agreed. But, in my opinion, that is why he adopts his limited version of panpsychism, not what you believe.

=

“In Goff’s view the concept of a material world as something existing separate from consciousness would be equally magical and should be rejected. Both views are dualistic, and therefore create their own downfall”.

I think I agree, but Goff’s solution again, in order to avoid dualism, is to offer a panpsychism which leans in favour of matter, not consciousness as you believe.

=

I agree with your analysis of Buddhism, i.e. that that is what Buddhism says. I favour the Hindu belief in Atman, which is closer to what I say in the next article. Also, I think that Buddhism stands alone in that interpretation, compared with other religions. In addition to Hinduism, I would add the whole of the Western tradition — Christianity (before the RC Church got their hands on it), Gnosticism, neo-Platonism, and later esotericism. An extra burden of ‘evidence’ therefore is required from Buddhism for its viewpoint. I haven’t read it, but I believe that in Hinduism and Buddhism the Perennial Philosophist Ananda Coomaraswamy argues that, despite the claimed differences, there are really only a few details, and that the two are essentially the same. Of course, ultimately, even the Atman is just a whirlpool on the mind of God. However, I disagree with you that Goff is saying anything like this with his nondual Panpsychism, but I’ve laboured that point already.

=

“Goff’s nondual Panpsychism, in my opinion, goes a long way toward bridging that divide by hypothesizing that the physical world is an expression of consciousness”.

I’m hoping that you’re going to provide some evidence that this is his view. I can’t find any.

=

I would say that we know for certain that the mind and brain do interact

I agree with your comments here, although I would not express it quite so strongly. I would say, like you, that any difference between brain and mind is merely apparent, but there is nevertheless a difference, that they exist at a different level of reality, and at a different density (something to do with level of vibration?), as outlined in the next article (I haven’t read your comments on that yet.)

=

All he has done, to avoid the problem of dualism, is to assert that brain and mind are, or must be, a single integrated unit.

Again, I agree with what you say, but not that that is what Goff is saying. I think you have again reinterpreted him to fit in with your beliefs (which, as you know, I agree with reasonably closely).

=

“Goff is breaking from classical dualist Panpsychism in this book, and proposing a nondual model in which consciousness is all there is”.

“My disagreement is that you seem to interpret this very different Pansychism to be dualist as well, as you say, only a watered down version of scientific materialism. That’s not correct (IMO). Goff is saying all matter is consciousness behaving ‘materially’ ”.

It’s not correct that I interpret Goff’s panpsychism to be dualist. On the contrary, his whole point is that he suggests that consciousness must be a fundamental attribute of matter, in order to avoid dualism. But nowhere can I see that he is advocating what you say about consciousness. He adopts his position in order to expand, and remain approximately in line with, materialist science. Again, please show me any evidence that supports what you say.

=

As he correctly says, consciousness is a ubiquitous feature of matter, but this is true because matter is actually a form of consciousness, not because consciousness is a fundamental attribute of matter. “Yes, this is the whole argument of Goff’s book”.

Again, please provide some quotes. I can’t find any. Everything he says suggests that he believes that consciousness is a fundamental attribute of matter, not the other way round.

=

Regarding your final paragraph, I completely agree with you (what a relief!). Quantum mechanics is the future.

Don’t worry about being argumentative (although it was something of a surprise).