It seems extraordinary that Professor Goff simply equates things like mass, charge, and spin with “consciousness”…and it especially bothers me as someone who studied philosophy and thinks it’s an incredibly important subject to learn (despite instrumentalist types, you can never, ever escape at least some metaphysical and epistemic presuppositions/axioms/primitive notions of whatever your particular worldview is). But it’s also one that MUST take into account feedback from the natural sciences. If you actually do, you realize that early on there is a rapid expansion of space-time, eventually leading to galaxies and stars and planets, one of which ends up producing self-catalyzing molecules that lead to a proto-cell that then leads to all of evolutionary life. Consciousness emerges once sufficiently complex multicellular organisms make an appearance (and this makes PERFECT sense when considered in the context of Darwinian natural selection, those that navigate and understand their own environment better will be more successful). What makes absolutely no sense is then taking the word we have for those complex cognitive processes (which involve memory storage and retrieval, sensory perception, psychological traits like motivation/desire) and shifting its meaning back to basic/fundamental quantifiable properties like mass and charge. That can be considered philosophy, but it’s bad philosophy that flies in the face of the last few centuries of scientific explanation in biology, chemistry, and physics,(reply>), Yeah, I mean experience and subjectively inhabiting your own mind seem deeply conected to the material that it's made from and its structure. Psychology and medicine depend on a mechanism based in chemistry. I mean, what could a photon outside of time possibly experience? It's all so poorly defined it reeks of woo without even cursory understanding of his theory, and he fails to predict or explain anything at all over a the accepted science. It's all very lofty nonsense hung in a thought experiment.