Goff is breaking from classical dualist Pansychism in this book, and proposing a nondual model in which consciousness is all there is
Absolutely. Although I didn’t read Goff’s book, his position on this is pretty clear. He’s definitely a “non-dualist.” Listen to his own words (first ~13 minutes, next ~10 minutes is Kastrup’s response, I didn’t listen to the rest):
The Buddhist view differs from Hinduism in that Buddhism does not accept the idea of “Atman,” or essence, or the “spark of God within us,” or whatever.
It’s interesting to note that Buddhism only rejects Atman as a reincarnating separated personal soul (personal as in one “whirlpool” — one Atman). Yet, Hinduism never actually postulated Atman as such (I guess, this concept emerged in commentaries on Vedas) — Ayam Atma Brahma, which literally means This Self is Brahman, and which merely means that the notion of subjective self is nothing other than the absolute “cosmic” self, that is all there is. Buddhism in this manner is the ultimate non-duality. It does not spell out what is to be realized, it tries to circumvent the trap of imagining the goal of realization. Then again, Atman (as seemingly disassociated personal Self — see Kastrup’s response above — which I like to call “perfect multi-threading”) is an empirical fact.
It doesn’t matter if material science gets results or makes working predictions. It’s wrong. A “new science” that takes a brand new look at the physical world without disregarding consciousness would indeed be both “new” and “science.”
This is a very valid point. On the other hand I don’t see a problem with science as it is (i.e. that it operates in “dual mode” in realm of “manifested” phenomena), if it would be informed by correct knowledge. Without personal realization as in knowing the Absolute on a “personal level”, there cannot be a realization as in manifesting. Thus, science can have correct theoretical understanding of everything and yet people could still behave in the old “unenlightened” ways. Or in other words, science as it is now could fulfill its purpose if scientists had personal knowledge of Absolute. But yes, changing the paradigm would be certainly inductive to general shift (in attitude and perhaps also action) toward the knowledge of Absolute, which would, no doubt, reflect in culture, education, etc.
