Very interesting post Graham. I have long seen panpsychism as a step in a better direction vs the pure physicalist viewpoint that says there is no consciousness or if there is it must be an emergent property of all intelligence. But I believe panpsychism as the answer is a deadend and seems to me to be heading that way. Goff has been struggling with the combination problem I have seen in other posts. How does the consciousness in a quark, or even atom, combine with the consciousness in others to create the conscious experience of a human mind? I disagree with Ren Koi whom you quote as noted, and believe that in the dual aspect monism idea we have a better path to understanding the mind-body problem. Idealism solves it much better than physicalism, but I agree with Polkinghorne in seeing in both pure idealism and pure physicalism a similar reductionism. I know you don't agree there but I point to his comment that in doing science virtually all scientists have to deal with the "facticity" of matter. They may be idealists, but as I've pointed out before, there are many ways in which we operate without consistency.