Yes, in thinking of the idea of God, it is worth considering what that would entail. When I was a teenager (Catholic) I conceived of it as the Trinity. This 'mystery' involved The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God was the invisible source, the Son, was God embodied as Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit as the invisible force giving rise to the manifestation of Christ, and Christ-inspired action, or healing. I can remember a school teacher, a feminist, challenging this masculine conception and referring to God as 'she'. Many pupils and parents were shocked by this and my own conclusion was that God was beyond gender, apart from Jesus being a man.

I also came to see the idea of Brahman and Atman in Hinduism as important. Even though there are many gods in Hinduism, Atman is the supreme godhead, with the human (Brahman) who realises the presence of Atman. With an interest in comparative religion, I also came to recognise the idea of The Tao, the Supreme Reality behind everything.

Now, when thinking about God and the question or meaning of such existence, I see it as being fairly fluid in human conception, but as the potential, or force, underlying all manifest existent forms in the universe, and possibly beyond.

In the two scenarios which you describe it is possible that there is no difference. So, it may be that the idea of an afterlife, which often is associated with the idea of God plays a major factor. Personally, I am inclined to think that the question of life after death matters more than the existence of God. I admit that I have spent more time wondering about the various possibilities of life after death. That is because if one doesn't continue in any form what is the significance of God in relation to one's own personal identity. It becomes rather abstract and more about being known in 'the mind of God'.

Obviously, I am sure that many people in philosophy circles would scorn the process superstition. For those who pray, it is to whichever God one believes in but prayer is central to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It may be about focusing on one's own deepest self. A similar process occurs in traditions of meditation, although meditation is not 'inner speech' with any figure but more about stilling one's thought processes. Both may involve going beyond the surface of ego consciousness.

Whether one's ideas about reality are 'delusions' or not is culture dependent. The standard idea of delusion is if one's ideas are not shared by others. For example, if someone believes oneself to be a Messiah it is usually thought to be delusional. Generally, those with unusual beliefs are regarded as eccentric, or referred to a psychiatrist.

Even within psychiatry, mental health professionals ideas vary, ranging from fundamentalists to hardcore atheists. This affects the way the professionals interpret the ideas of psychosis and delusions. Nevertheless, one common ground is thinkers about the impact of the ideas. If a person is seen as a risk to oneself or others there is more concern about delusional beliefs.

Of course, it is is possible for people in power or an entire nation to be delusional, in a 'harmful' way. Politics involves ideas about reality, ranging from leaders fighting for religious beliefs to Marxism based on dialectical materialism.

Yes, who is or what is your god? That is a good question if the capital G of God is removed. It doesn't matter if it is nature or a higher, transcendental reality but what it stands for in terms of values and motivation, especially the power of wisdom or love.

The idea of God as the first cause is one amongst many others. This is so different from the idea of a personal relationship with God which is held by many religious believers. The idea of prayer only makes sense from that perspective.

I do agree with you that the idea of 'God' varies in meaning, or meaninglessness, from person to person. The definitive arguments for or against the existence, or non-existence, is problematic. That is because meaning is constructed culturally and individually. The idea of what is 'absolute reality' is relative to a large extent.

Throughout history and throughout the world there may be underlying ideas, such as the idea of God but it is only interpretation. Initially, a person is taught a set of beliefs, which they may accept or reject. In the information age of twentieth first century there is so much choice of perspectives and ideas. A person may choose on the basis of what seems to make sense from a rational, emotional or intuitive level. It may be about pragmatic navigation of life experiences and choices.

I updated the thread title. It was a thread I started some time ago in the past, which resurfaced. I have updated the title to reflect the direction it is taking.

The issue of God's existence is one which has gone on and on in philosophy. It can go round and round in circles to the point of being boring. Equally, it remains a heated matter, and may show how philosophy can become justification of preference of beliefs. It can be asked does it still matter whether 'God' exists. I maintain that it does, because how it affects one's stance to understanding life. It is a recurrent philosophical issue and will remain so, even though it cannot be proven for or against the existence of God.

I am aware that the angle which you come from is a slightly different one of asking how important the question is. This may really be the central one for thinking about as some would question the significance of the philosophy of religion. To what extent is the concept of God outdated and mere speculation?

I started out with an interest in how to live even when I had not fully questioned religion. I had issues about the nature of reality and about ethics. I was not sure to what extent ethics and issues of religion were separate. However, in my reading I came to realise that whether we believe in God or spiritual reality affects one's entire approach to life.

That is not to say that ethics only matters to religious believers at all. It is not as simple as 'if God does not exist everything is permitted' (Dostoevsky). Some of the secular humanists have constructed ethical frameworks which are not dependent on the existence of God or spiritual reality. Morality doesn't rely on a belief in punishment from God in an afterlife.

However, whether or not one believes in God does affect one's approach and interpretation of all that happens in life. That is why I think that it is still an important question and will still matter as long as philosophy exists.

The question of separation from 'God' is interesting and I also can relate to Eastern metaphysics. For example, Buddhism doesn't speak of a specific deity. However, it does believe in a spiritual dimension, which could be described as the symbolic dimension. This is only realised in the human mind, due to the limits of human knowledge of absolute 'reality' Of.course, it may be relative as opposed to some absolute 'mind's eye' of 'God'.

Some Eastern thinkers speak of an 'overself' or 'oversoul' which may be about the stream of consciousness arising in experience. I think that this is how William James understood religious or spiritual experiences. Here, spirituality may be about numinous experiences, such as depicted in the arts, as opposed to just those categorised within the domain of 'traditional 'religious beliefs and thinking.

It is interesting that Bohm's model may be nearer to Spinoza's model than to that of Plato. I do struggle with reading Spinoza and it is possible that not enough attention has been paid to him due to the obscurity of his writing. It almost seems 'esoteric', although I admit that it may be my own shortcoming that I find him difficult to read. I only have a downloaded copy of 'Ethics' and, perhaps, if I got a paper version I may get on better with it.

Yes, the concept of something from 'nothing's does give rise to the idea of 'the void'. I have always seen this as a parallel between the idea of the unconscious, after I came across a book, 'God and the Unconscious' by Victor White, when I was at a teenager. The book is based on a dialogue between Victor White, a theologian, with Jung.

Of course, I know that I am so influenced by Jung, as you are with Spinoza. I wonder how can the Jungian worldview can be compared and contrasted with that of Spinoza?

I agree with both mind/matter as essential and wonder about how this totally may be 'God', Human beings could be conceived as cells of consciousness, as well as all the varying lifeforms.

Bearing in mind the ambiguity of Whitehead's term 'experience' as equivalent to 'information' I wonder how he regards the symbolic dimension. Is it like part of a computer? I once had a friend, who in the midst of 'psychosis' banged his head on the floor and exclaimed, 'God is a computer'. It struck me that he had made an important statement. The idea of 'God' could be seen as a model of information, as known to us in the age of 'virtual reality'. Similarly, the nature of computer simulation could be seen as an alternative to the anthropomorphic conceptions of absolute reality, as the sum of all parts, or 'God'.

With the question of God (or gods) as a Being, that is where the idea of the supernatural realm comes in. Some religious thinkers even posit the idea of a 'divine hierarchy', including realms of angels and archangels as intermediate between God and human beings.

Some cognitive thinkers, such as Jesse Bering, speak of as the 'God instinct' as an aspect of evolutionary psychology. The idea of God may even be hardwired into the brain, although critical reason has led human beings to question the existence of God or gods. There were atheists amongst the ancients though, just as there theists in the twentieth first century.

Generally, one needs to step into the frame of ancient human beings in considering this. .One significant book is, 'The Bicameral Mind: The Origins of Consciousness' by Julian Jaynes. He maintains that ancient people's religious experiences were comparable with those of people diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of course, this cannot be proven empirically. However, what Jaynes is arguing is that at some point, human beings did not have a distinct separate sense of inner experience and the objective world. The figures of inner experience, such as Moses' sense of receiving the Ten Commandments amidst a burning bush were taken as 'real' in an objective sense.

Such a picture would be compatible with the poetic visionary descriptions of Homer, and it is possible that Plato also came from this angle. Myth and religious experience arose in conjunction with the development of song, poetry and language. Graham Hancock suggests that the idea of the supernatural corresponds with the development of the symbolic dimensions of human experience.

I am trying to square the circle for myself of the issue of non-duality with Platonism. That is why I am in the midst of reading Murdoch's interpretation of Plato. I have read Bohm's ideas on the idea of the implicate and explicate order. However, this would correspond with an interpretation of the Forms aspects of invisible metaphysics.

With the idea of non-duality, or substance dualism there is still a question of emphasis on the physical or the spiritual. That is where it gets difficult. That is why the notion of God may be useful, but not necessarily in the form of the deity of mainstream Abrahamic religions. It may come down to the idea of The Tao, the unity at the paradox of all dualities.

Fuererbach's 'projections' raise the question as to whether God created man in his own image or vice versa. Ultimately, this is a matter of speculation, and problematic, as AJ Ayer argued. But, the question of source does seem important and is connected to the issue of how did something come from nothing?

Separating mind and matter is an issue as the two are bound up intricately. That is why I go towards the position of non-dualism. I have been rereading Iris Murdoch's 'Existentialists and Mystics' recently. She shifts her views at various points from reading diverse authors, including Kierkergaard, Sartre, Plato and Simone Weil. The general gist of her exploration comes up with a form of nature mysticism, which does not involve belief in 'God'.

Murdoch does not get into aspects of physics as such, but her writing does hinge around the nature of explanations, including language and images. Here, the issue of 'quantum physics' can be questioned in relation to 'woo woo' philosophy.

If quantum physics is taken literally, as a definitive description of 'reality' it becomes as fanciful as many religious arguments. Quantum physics is only a model, but one which takes into account the 'virtual' nature of -reality'. It replaces clockwork, mechanistic explanations including a 'God' out there, heaven 'up above' and 'hell below'. But, it does point to an unknown 'invisible source' from my point of view. If nothing else this may mean that I am a mystic in the Platonic sense.

It is interesting that you resuscitated this thread because I have been thinking about the theism/debate recently. It is an extremely complex area and I am sure that there are many forms of 'shallow' theism. I know that you have read Spinoza and interpret it slightly differently from his initial position of pantheism.

Part of the issue which I see is the question as to whether there is a 'higher power' or not, which may come down to whether spirit or 'the supernatural' exist in any meaningful way. Or, are they mere projections of the human imagination? I am inclined to think that there is a transcendent realm. I was also interested in the ideas of Whitehead, as described to me by @Gnomon in my recent thread on panpsychism. This involves an emphasis on the transcendent and the imminent as processes. There is nature but does anything exist beyond this, as source.

Generally, I am interested in comparative worldviews, especially Buddhism, which does not believe in a specific deity, but allows for some kind of transcendent levels of consciousness.

Also, I am interested in the evolution of magic and religion as topics in anthropology and religion, especially shamanism. Of course, I am aware that there is a danger of getting carried away with this but I see the shamanic model of reality as one worth considering. Fred Alan Wolf saw shamanism as comparable with the energetic nature of 'quantum reality'.

I agree that sexuality is such a wide spectrum range from biology, psychology and culture. However, in thinking about narcissism the psychology aspect is extremely important, especially from the standpoint of psychoanalysis. Freud emphasises the principle of self-love as the foundation for all relationships. It is about basic solidity of ego, especially in the early development of childhood.

I know that Freud's ideas are open to a lot ot criticism but his understanding of childhood development point to the way in which childhood traumas affect one's psychology throughout life. This is a basis for understanding why childhood sexual abuse is so detrimental. One criticism of Freud that he dismissed some flashback memories of childhood abuse as being fantasy. There is a strong link between mental health problems and childhood sexual abuse, acknowledged by many psychiatric researchers.

The ideas of Lacan as a later psychoanalytic development are also of significance. At this stage, I haven't managed to read his actual writing as I I found it rather heavy going. But I did read one book, 'Using Lacanian Clinical Technique_ An Introduction', by Philip F Hill.
He offers a couple of relevant quotes from Lacan:
'Man is captivated by the image of his own body.'
'The sexual relation implies capture by the other's image.'
Hill explains the role of images in particular as central to falling in love in general.

It would make sense to argue that it is differ fall in love if one is struggling with one's own self image and that is why issues, such as body dysmorphic disorder, have such an intrusive impact in life.

I am not sure to what extent Bergson's idea of mind as 'filter' can be taken literally. It is speculative in the sense that one can only pinpoint the brain aspects of the brain through empirical means. It is possible to form diagrams of the brain and nervous system based on research but it doesn't point to the underlying 'substance' of mind itself. Chemicals can alter consciousness, including the neurotransmitters but that is only the physical basis of it.

I do wonder what 'substance' is in itself and wonder how @MoK defines this.


I like your description of 'the mind is all the body's functions online as spirit'. It captures the virtual nature of the reality of experience.

Defining 'mind' is extremely problematic and entire volumes have been written with this aim by Hegel and so many writers, including Gilbert Ryle's 'Concept of Mind'. Of course, you are asking me about my own slant. I am influenced a lot by Carl Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, which involves layers of the psyche, including the subconscious and the collective unconscious as a source.

I also take on board many perspectives. I have read Daniel Dennett but do not agree with his materialist perspective. Of course, the brain and nervous system is the wiring but that can be far too reductive. The physical is its base and organic factors are of key significance.

But, 'mind' as source seems essential too. Henry Bergson's idea of the mind as being a filter of 'mind at large' offers a fuller descriptive explanation. Aldous Huxley drew upon this too, in thinking about hallucinogenic induced altered perception, such as the use of mescaline. This is chemically altered experience but involves mystic states of heightened perception. Drugs can lead to psychiatric problems, mainly psychosis, especially when used in a recreational way. However, they can also up the subconscious and imagination, which may have been so important in the evolution of consciousness amongst ancient people.

The mind may have subtle levels and that is why the issue of panpsychism arises because it would be about the lowest rudimentary stirrings of potential emergence of consciousness, or some reactive response to stimuli.

Without a brain there is no imagination or capacity to reflect, as you point out. Imagination and reflection are process related. I am wondering whether Whitehead's description of the transcendent has any independent will independently of physical forms through which it transmits. That may be where it becomes impossible to split the physical from the non physical as they are a duality in process. Even that which has no brain, such as a tree cannot be reduced to a mere spirit and exist fully. The immaterial.relues upon vehicle of the material for its expression.

With the concept of the ghost there is no channel for sensory perception. It could be regarded as information but it is different from an actual living being. Even computers and forms of artificial intelligence don't have the underlying processes of imagination an creativity. That is why they could be said to lack a 'soul' as without sentience there is no direct interaction with the transcendent or the source of evolutionary potential.

Yes, I am probably 'wrong' to speak of some beings or objects as more 'real' than others. It would come down to the issue of more 'real' for whom? Consciousness is not in itself a determinant of what is 'real'. My bed has no consciousness but it is as real as I am.

When I suggested that some objects are more real than conscious beings I am suggesting that they are more permanent. What I meant is that they are less subject to change, or death specifically.

Of course, so much is variable in terms of structures. A bed may break but it doesn't change form whereas some objects disintegrate. Sentient beings grow and change through processes such as puberty and illness. Their consciousness also makes them subject to changes in behaviour. States of mind play an active role in a being's underlying nature. In particular, the inorganic has no will or survival instincr.

I am sorry if you don't understand my argument. Part of this may come down to how 'objects'are understood. Are they as real as conscious beings; or more real, if one takes a materialist stance.

As you may be aware, I have sympathy with Jung's idea of synchronicity, which is about patterns as opposed to causality, in the strictest sense. So, seeing what happens in nature in life is about patterns and the realm of metaphors. Objects may have 'life' in so far as they have significance in human meaning. It is hard to know how this compares to the idea of objects, such as in the mineral kingdom have consciousness in their own right. I don't know how the independent consciousness of objects could be measured by human consciousness.

I am not sure to what extent this reply answers your query about my perspective on the issue of pansychism. I welcome further questioning because I am wishing to understand and think about this area of philosophy in a sympathetic but critical point of view. Intimately, I am not sure how significant the philosophy of panpsychism is but have some intuition that it of importance at this particular time in understanding consciousness and its processes.

Generally, respect of others is important. It is complicated when ideas are so much in conflict. Part of the art may be about seeing the positive arguments in disagreeing ideas This can be a basis for fruitful exchange of ideas; as opposed to attacking those who see differently from oneself.

I have the good fortune of having come across a face to face group where respect is seen as being extremely important. Being in such a group is so helpful from my point of view. Of course, there are differing ideas but listening to and appreciating differing perspectives can be a starting point for generating useful discussion, as opposed to mere 'war of ideas'.

Offence in itself is complicated. Is it an offence to argue against ideas ot against the person who is preventing them? The dynamics of projection may be important and those who attack others' ideas in a vehement way may be fighting conflict in their inner experience and views An attempt to listen and understand another person's perspective may be about the art of an open mind in critical understanding.

Quantum.fields may be important in understanding of consciousness and panpsychism. It is this aspect which may be significant, or dismissed, in the debate of the significance of panpsychism. So much of consciousness has been located in brain in the Cartesian- Newtonian picture of reality.

I am sure that being sceptical is also important to avoid wild flights of fantasy but so much goes back to issues of how 'reality' is constituted and works. There has idealism and materialism, as well.ad theism.and idealism. What if all such ideas and models are inadequate? Panpsychism may not be complete but it may further ongoing partiality in models of understanding..Just as consciousness itself is evolving, the human models and descriptions of it, are evolving too.

The duality of body/brain is inherent in nature. There is the problem of seeing consciousness in the brain alone, as opposed to the nervous system and its distribution in the body. Toenails may experience pain and have some form of consciousness. This would explain the underlying varying degrees of consciousness, including diverse forms of bedbugs and crystals.

So much of human understanding is concrete as opposed to symbolic. Part of this dilemma comes down to the question of what the human imagination stands for. It goes back to qualia and issues of metaphysics, as a dilemma in the sciences and arts. Which is more 'real' in descriptive understanding? Likewise, it could be questioned is panpsychism is a metaphorical analogy or an epistemological model of underlying processes of nature?

What I wonder about most in reading ideas of Spinoza, and others, including Shopenhauer; is to what extent ideas like reincarnation and resurrection are symbolic primarily. That is, whether they go beyond individual identity or personal identity as such. This would be more about a cosmic recycling process in the larger scheme of the evolution of consciousness.

Of course, it is hard to know how it works exactly and what the symbolic stands for. Panpsychism, going back to Its roots in animism, may involve the nature of the perplexity of issues of the evolution and emergence of consciousness in varying degrees through the vehicle of matter.

There is so much to be questioned in theory and human experience. With diagnostic criteria of body dysmorohic disorder, erroneous perception comes into play. In particular, a person may be preoccupied with a feature of 'ugliness' which is not observed by others. But, so much involves cultural or intersubjective standards.

Some of this comes down to cultural aesthetics about the body. However, it also involves ideas of perfection in the wider sphere, including moral aspects. Here, I am suggesting that ideas of 'goodness' and 'badnees' come into play in self perception and ideas of what is seen as 'wrong' in the mirror.

The two may overlap, especially in conjunction with sexuality, which has so much of a significant role in both aesthetic and moral dimensions of identity and the arena of perception by an 'other'' or others. It involves self acceptance and repentance of one's personal worth, on a whole global or blurred picture of personal identity and self worth. It involves relationships and how one experiences in moments of alonenesx in the mirror of reflective self-awareness.

I do struggle with the clear distinction between life/ death and mind/matter. Prior to interaction on this forum, I definitely believed in disembodied consciousness. Now, I see the idea of disembodied consciousness as problematic, especially in the absence of sentience. Nevertheless, I am aware of the way in which some models of consciousness, Including some perspectives on artificial intelligence challenge the role of sentience in consciousness itself.

I see it as a big philosophy quandary. I used to think that Plato's idea of immortality, as disembodied made sense, but do see this as extremely questionable in my present understanding of its connection with matter/ mind. The idea of reincarnation (and resurrection) overcome this duality. However, so much is speculative and comes down to the notion of justified belief as opposed to clear empirical arguments.

I am still grappling with the label and ideas of substance dualism. I have had a number of discussions with @180 Proof about it and how Spinoxa's philosophy is important. However, this is probably dependent on how one interpretats Spinoza. At this point, I would say that I I have some sympathy/ empathy with substance dualism. However, as for the naming of the theory, this is complex, especially the clear distinction between conceptual frameworks of substance dualism or non-dualism.

An interesting outpost, as so much can go wrong in the mirror. The reflection in the mirror physically and psychologically is the foundation of personal and social identity. The sense of self is gained in front of the mirror in connection with the gaze of the other in social interaction.

The mirror itself is of significance. I remember when I lived with a mirror nearby my bed it was horrible to see myself as soon as I woke up each day. Of course, the mirror is a reverse image so it is not as one appears exactly to others as most people are not completely symmetrical.

Selfies have also become the new mirrors even though they can be played around with. We live in a world of images and one can love or loath oneself. Identity problems arise in conjunction with such images, including eating disorders, body dysmorphic disorder and gender identity problems.

The psychological aspects of self and the perception of self by others is the foundation of relationships and so many developmental and psychiatric issues. Autism is interesting as it is like a soliptist bubble in some ways.

I have read some of Sartre's writing on self, body and otherness, which I found helpful. Also, the social sciences shed light on the issues, including Erving Goffman's sociological work, 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life'. Also, object-relations theory, especially the work of Melanie Klein, looks at developmental aspects of self identity, with the role of mother as the initial mirror.

One book which I came across which I see as very significant is Martin Buber's 'I and Thou'. It compares the relationship between self and a personal 'God' and the human other. This is of importance in imagination and fantasy. As belief in God is facing there may be more attention to the opinions of others for a sense of self and self esteem.

But, as for the solution to the problem of self loathing or excessive self-love I am not sure that there is a complete solution. In practical terms, ito throw away the mirrors entirely might result in a complete disheveled appearance. Also, opinions of others may be overvalued but do need to be taken into account for coping in social life.

I am an existentialist outsider in many respects but don't wish to be a complete isolate. As people spend more time on the internet and phones there is a danger of going into a fantasy life in which the other becomes more remote. It may be a way of getting lost in a life of fantasy and preoccupation with an idealised imaginary image of oneself. To find the balance in navigating self and aloneness may be the way to wisdom. Through feedback from others we gain some awareness of our own blindspots, which may be uncomfortable but essential for deepening self-awareness.

By the 'One' I am referring to 'mind' although I am not a dualist. I don't think that body and mind are separate with the body as container. It is far more complex, especially with mind not being located in the head alone in the brain itself, just as the self is not an entity to be contained in the physical being.

Even if rocks were seen as having some consciousness, it is unlikely that human beings would care. Generally, ecology been dismissed and human beings have seen themselves as being at the top of the hierarchy, as 'special' and to use nature for benefiting human need and greed.

The idea of the existence of 'the soul' was often a way of justifying this. Some thinkers in the past thought that men had souls but women didn't. Similarly, certain people were looked down upon as if 'primitive'. Such hierarchical thinking can be a means of justification of exploitation.

Thank you for the summary of Whitehead's philosophy relating to panpsychism. I will try to explore his ideas further because immanence and transcendence seem both important. I am not convinced that transcendence and the experience of the numinous can be reduced to the physical completely.

With the interaction between humans and objects, while the objects don't have consciousness in their own right, I do wonder if human consciousness permeates objects, at an influential level beyond action itself. Projective forces come into play but it is possible that human thoughts actually interact with physical objects. For example, I know that my room.gets in a mess and things fall over when I am in a negative state of mind. To some extent it may be symbolic but I do wonder if objects are influenced by thoughts.

There is also the strange phenomena of statues shedding tears. Of course, this may be a hoax of some kind.

I haven't read Whitehead but would like to, in order to consider the idea of 'God' as imminent or transcendent. Of course, it does go back to debate ranging from Kant, Schopenhauer and Spinoza. The idea of pantheism is relevant to this.

I have known people who believe in spiritualism. I am not sure what people are tapping into exactly and that is why I find Jung's notion of the collective unconscious to be useful.

In my post above I referred to a view within theosophy of ghosts not being 'soul' itself but traces of energy disturbances. This goes hand in hand with the belief that fragments of a person break down. This is compatible with ideas of rebirth but is not dependent on there being a rebirth necessarily.

In his book 'Supernatural', Graham Hancock describes the way in which the development of belief in the gods was the basis of for the development of the symbolic realm. Whether beings such as gods and angels have independent life and experience is open to question. This would be about the disembodied, so is different from panpsychist ideas about matter, but it does involve the underlying issue of whether experience is dependent on the principle of sentience itself.

Yes, it is a good question as to whether everything being seen as cells, like brain cells, is equivalent to panpsychism. I do think that James Lovelock's idea of Gaia touches upon this. Consciousness, in terms of self-awareness, may be the experience of human consciousness but it all relates to larger systems beyond the human. The earth and other planets are not human, with a sense of personal self, but they have their own organisational capacity.

In thinking about the comparison between panpsychism and ancient ideas of 'ensoulment' I am wondering about its comparison with paganism.

I have also done some reading of theosophy and this has some bearing on the issue of what is spirit in relation to the life force. One idea which I came across was in connection with souls and spirits. That was the suggestion that ghosts are not 'soul' itself but memory traces in energy fields, especially in cases of traumatic experiences. Theosophy encompasses the view of various levels of spiritual reality, including embodied experience, but not seeing the embodied as all and everything.

The 'unity of experience' raises questions because it involves so much. Plotinus's idea of the 'One' is useful though. That is because it links the nature of subjective experience to the wider sense of consciousness as a source.

I was a little unsure of the description of Strawson's ideas. It would be too simplistic if any panpsychist thought that rocks were alive in a similar way to human beings' experience. Some of it comes down to differentiating subjective and objective aspects of consciousness, such as Nagel's question of 'What is it like to be a bat?' We make assumptions and there is probably a lot of sense in common sense, especially in what it means to be alive. I know that Russell, my teddy bear, doesn't have consciousness other than what I project onto him.

It is also a matter for physics as well as consciousness. I only understand physics in the questions it raises about philosophy (or metaphysics). However, from what I have read the issue of quantum entanglement has some bearing on the nature of consciousness and to the idea of panpsychism.