So, panpsychism means "consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality..." "consciousness is the ultimate nature of matter"," but wait... then Goff says: conscious doesn't mean conscious. (<a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCdV6BMMpOo&amp;t=08m25s"">08:25</a> "It doesn't literally mean that everything is conscious", ..." despite the meaning of panpsychism. Basically Philip Goff is only saying: "There is something that is the ultimate nature of matter." He calls it consciousness, but he doesn't mean "consciousness" by it. Is this just a witty sales-strategy to sell his books and to publish more articles? <br>What the hell is going on here: I'm a pan-psychist, consciousness is fundamental. but I don't mean consciousness when I say consciousness.  Very "rigorous" thinking there, wow. More like a very unscientific play with words and definitions.,(reply>), @Martin Williams more blabla,(reply>), Panexperientialism doesn't have that problem, especially if consciousness is meta-experience!,(reply>), Exactly yeah. Why if you want to explain that "stuff" come into existence when there is some interaction or change within or among them, you have to bring the very unfitting word "consciousness" for it. When you can just say what I said, that it's interaction/change of "stuff" that we ultimately don't understand, maybe never fully will. <br>Panpsychism wouldn't even be good in a science fiction novel, because it wouldn't even be consistent within that fictional world - because there is literally no logic to be found in it.,(reply>), @YouAndWhoseTube And my criticism is: why call it conscious if it's not conscious?,(reply>), The idea is all parts (i.e. fundamental particles) are conscious but not necessarily all wholes (what philosophers call ‘mereological sums’), like tables, trees etc.