For those interested, here’s a very thorough paper about what I’ve been calling Universal Consciousness:
Universal Consciousness is not supernatural religious babbling—the concept has been put forth by many prominent scientists, including founders of quantum physics, John Wheeler with his “participatory universe”, and now, even Roger Penrose is talking about it.
The concept is unproven metaphysics at this point, but perhaps someday it will become accepted mainstream science.
STUART HAMEROFF got all tied up in his own thoughts
I like the idea of panpsychism only not as something that adheres in all particles, but rather as the result of how certain particles are arranged, so then on a higher meta plane, somewhat like a higher dimension as was discussed.
They equated awareness with consciousness, and I don't think that it is that simple. Sure the amoeba is aware, but is it conscious?
Finally, I think we see reality, it is the on the surface of what we see, what appears. All other forms of say 'deeper' realities such as classical or quantum physics are abstractions from what we obtain empirically and therefor they are subservient to, and must explain, the apparent.
We get crossed up with words. What I think organisms have is bodily sentience, or sensitivity to sensory input. What I’ve been calling deep conscious awareness is knowledge and appreciation for one’s existence. A robot can be equipped with sensors, and can be programmed to respond to sensations, but a robot doesn’t know that it exists. That’s just my usage—not necessarily the standard.
It seems to me that whatever we detect using our senses has to be merely illusory or symbolic of an underlying reality that is totally inaccessible.
Thanks for your response.