I'll give it a look but to me this sounds like declaring neutrons too experience digestion. Seems odd to attribute something we're only familiar with as a bodily function to inanimate objects, but I suppose it is their inanimateness which is in question. I'll have to hold my skepticism at bay long enough to give it a look.

"As modern panpsychists like Alfred North Whitehead, David Ray Griffin, Galen Strawson, and others have argued, all matter has some capacity for feeling, albeit highly rudimentary feeling in most configurations of matter. "

Okay, I do attribute consciousness to any creature with a cognitive function to make use of sense data. But why should things lacking senses or cognition feel anything?

"While inanimate matter doesn’t evolve like animate matter, inanimate matter does behave. It does things. It responds to forces. Electrons move in certain ways that differ under different experimental conditions. These types of behaviors have prompted respected physicists to suggest that electrons may have some type of extremely rudimentary mind. For example the late Freeman Dyson, the well-known American physicist, stated in his 1979 book, Disturbing the Universe, that “the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call ‘chance’ when made by electrons.” Quantum chance is better framed as quantum choice—choice, not chance, at every level of nature."

That just seems like a fun conjecture but you can't infuse inanimate objects with consciousness by using the term choice instead of chance to describe how they react. Boy my bias for the Newtonian world view really is pretty strong. QM really annoys me. Still I'm inclined to see the choice of describing quantum states as a matter of choice (rather than chance) as grossly anthropomorphic.

Light being conscious us not a new ideal

John 1:1 In the beginning was the logos(thought/word/reasoning - consicious cognition capability)

What is brain waves? What is sparking when thinking? What is chemical reaction doing?

In John 8:12 Jesus applies the title to himself while debating with the Jews and states: I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.

1 cor. 2:16. for, "Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Interesting read, thanks for posting.

Amazing.
Electrons thinking? Thought IS an aspect of 'consciousness,' and from there we could further postulate an interconnectedness of all consciousness into a ''universal mind.' This in turn could serve as a hypothetical definition of 'god.'
In this scenario 'god' would truly be EVERYTHING in a Pantheistic sense.
If true, how would a 'universal mind' function? Not as a singular entity, apparently, but maybe as a conduit, through which every particle of matter communicates with every other one?
How would this be appropriately thought of as 'god?' Clearly in a very different way than the god of old-school religious thought.
To me a very intriguing line of reasoning.