I agree that nothing about the brain itself explains consciousness. It looks more like a medium - a channel through which consciousness expresses - which would explain why damage to the brain affects expression but not necessarily the source. That opens space for out-of-body experiences and for consciousness beyond the human frame.
On the impersonal question, I’d say the ground of being isn’t impersonal in the sense you’re describing. The internet may know things but has no purpose; the vacuum may be silent but offers no relationship. What I mean is different: being itself is intelligent, purposeful, and relational. It isn’t a void, nor a machine. So while panpsychism points in the right direction - awareness everywhere - what I’m talking about has a quality of presence that is neither ‘impersonal void’ nor ‘a single Person God.’ It’s the ground in which both silence and expression arise, and in which purpose and relation have their source.
On the impersonal question, I’d say the ground of being isn’t impersonal in the sense you’re describing. The internet may know things but has no purpose; the vacuum may be silent but offers no relationship. What I mean is different: being itself is intelligent, purposeful, and relational. It isn’t a void, nor a machine. So while panpsychism points in the right direction - awareness everywhere - what I’m talking about has a quality of presence that is neither ‘impersonal void’ nor ‘a single Person God.’ It’s the ground in which both silence and expression arise, and in which purpose and relation have their source.
