This is a continuation of the first question.
I really don’t feel that way. I’m talking about cosmopsychism. It’s more plausible than a separate abstract entity that created and stands apart. You can see it as a continuation of Spinoza’s pantheism. See: https://www.eol.co.il/articles/1112

If you want to discuss some argument, please present it here. It’s hard for me to read articles as part of a question in the responsa forum. My apologies. I already wrote about Spinoza’s pantheism in the second notebook. In my view, it has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.

Supporters of matter argue that all that exists is physical reality, and that the organization of particles in the brain happens to cause us to experience things that we perceive as abstract. Supporters of spirit argue that spirit is the only thing one can assume has existence, and that physical reality is an illusion produced by that spirit. Both of these theories have many holes, which led thinkers to look for other directions.
According to another approach that has gained popularity, matter and spirit are not separate things such that only one of them exists. The view called panpsychism holds that some simple form of consciousness is a basic feature of particles in the universe. Spirit, then, exists in matter, and from this it follows that consciousness emerging from a biological brain is a natural matter. Although awareness is indeed fundamental in nature, it is not fragmented the way matter is. The idea is to extend consciousness across the entire fabric of space-time, rather than confining it within the boundaries of individual subatomic particles. This view, called cosmopsychism, says that there is only one consciousness, universal consciousness. Everything else that exists is a form of expression of that consciousness.

Personally, I count myself neither among the supporters of matter nor among the supporters of spirit, but among the supporters of dualism. That seems entirely reasonable and natural to me, so I’m not looking for other explanations. The wording here is part of a collection of discussions that give me the feeling that they’re just piles of words (like pantheism, for example). The claim that every particle has consciousness, or some conscious component, and that when you assemble the particles and a person is formed, consciousness is formed too, is a claim parallel to emergence—just without all this panpsychic wording. I addressed this idea in my book Science of Freedom. Briefly, I’d say I don’t see what is gained by this thesis, since it still assumes dualism. Except now the dualism exists in every particle. You can wrap it in language about how everything is one and this follows from that, but those are just empty words.
Unless you decide to invent some invention with no basis whatsoever, consciousness becomes a natural outcome of matter. By the same token, if I assume that every particle contains God, then the material whole will also yield God. And if I assume that every particle contains a demon’s wing, then demons will naturally grow out of the material whole. As I said, I don’t engage in these empty discussions, because in my view they are merely word games.

So without empty word games, why assume that an abstract entity created things and not nature itself, which is made up of both matter and spirit?

I don’t understand. That nature created itself? What difference does it make whether it also has spirit in it?

Because you assume that a complex creation has a creator. So the creating element is the spirit within matter.

So the spirit within matter (heaven knows what that is) is God.

Which is nature.

Is that its foreign name? It reminds me of those worn-out gematria sermons: “God” has the same numerical value as “nature.”
But seriously, don’t you notice that you’re playing with words without saying anything?
Do you mean that nature created itself? Or that there is something that is part of nature that created nature? These are absurdities.
Or perhaps there is something outside nature that created nature? Then that is God.

Come on now—my understanding is that what he means is that that primary element in nature is primordial!

I don’t understand the problem. Why do you need to assume some abstract existent that created? Nature came about on its own, and we are a symptom of its nature.

Then that primordial element is God.
Or are you just raising Aristotle’s alternative of an eternal universe? For that you really don’t need Watts or panpsychism and the rest of those psychic “-isms” that say nothing.
See my book The First Existent regarding all these arguments (I mean the few among them that actually say anything at all).

You do need it, because creation doesn’t arise by itself. Basic entities in nature have properties like mentality, a kind of psychic subtlety, which in certain larger-scale structures turn into conscious experience. That way you don’t need a separate watchmaker who created; nature is all there is, and we are a symptom of its nature.

Okay, at this point I’ve completely lost you. The poetry department, for me, belongs to a different wing than the philosophy department.

I really don’t understand why. It’s basically just slightly different wording from the way I explained panpsychism above. In any case, however you phrase it, it explains complexity nicely without God. Nature is what exists, full stop.

A. Why does complexity need an explanation at all? And how does your psycho-theory explain it? After all, it has a complex side. So that complex side needs an explanation too, if you accept A’s claim.

Its own cause.

Sorry, but I’m exhausted. These are circular messages that lie somewhere between poetry and literary Mandarin, languages I do not understand. The relevant questions on these matters were answered well (in my opinion) in my book The First Existent (and also a bit here in this thread).

No matter how you phrase it, the clear claim here is that you don’t need any God. Maybe it’s hard for you to admit that you really don’t need one, but that’s the situation.

I followed the discussion,
At this period in my life it’s a little hard for me to define where I belong in terms of faith and worldview,
I assume that’s part of the reason I came to this discussion,
I enjoy hearing all sorts of theories and enriching myself with knowledge,
I have to say that the statement about your worldview being dualism—“It seems entirely reasonable and natural to me, so I’m not looking for other explanations. The wording here is part of a collection of discussions that give me the feeling that they’re just piles of words…”
and in fact throughout the whole thread, sounds a bit condescending, I would say.
To me it seemed that there was a desire here for a philosophical discussion about faith and consciousness (broadly speaking), but because the general direction didn’t fit with your belief, you felt pretty comfortable belittling his words and placing them somewhere between poetry and Mandarin—and to that I say: too bad, though of course that’s your right.
The minimum is to respect the other person’s belief.

I respect everyone’s belief, provided that it is presented and argued for. Here there was an incoherent jumble of words with no meaning (in my opinion). If that sounds condescending to you, I’m sorry. That is exactly how I feel, and that is what I’m saying.

Matter and spirit are childish concepts that exist only in the imagination.
There is no measuring device that measures the amount of matter or the amount of spirit.

Any discussion of these belongs only in discussions of fantasies.

It seems to me that what he’s trying to say (in a somewhat messy way, and maybe not exactly the way I would) is that there are many consciousnesses communicating with one another through the transfer of information, and that information is the phenomenon of the world. But what actually exists are only the consciousnesses. And so all there is is consciousnesses hallucinating the world.
In my humble opinion, the more common view is more reasonable.