The argument: are we masters or slaves of the universe?
A brain-body is conscious. When its beliefs change, its perceived reality changes. Smaller pieces of the brain-body can cause large shifts in the wider brain’s beliefs and perception of reality. The laws that seem to govern their reality changes.
What is/isn’t physically included in that conscious brain-body is fuzzy. Brain-bodies can combine or assimilate, to make bigger conscious things.
Bigger or smaller things than the “traditional”, singular human being can be conscious. Let’s call them “pa-vessels” (panpsych agent). When a pa-vessel changes its brain-body and beliefs, the their perception of reality changes. The laws that seem to govern their reality change. Smaller pieces of the c-vessel can cause the wider c-vessel to change its perceived reality and laws.
A ps-vessel approaching the size of the universe can be conscious. When that universe-sized ps-vessel changes its brain-body and beliefs, the its perception of reality changes. The laws that seem to govern its reality changes. Smaller pieces of the ps-vessel can cause the wider ps-vessel to change its perceived reality and laws.
Therefore we humans can change the laws of the universe. Or we can’t. Both ways sound far-fetched. Reality falls somewhere in between, life survives somewhere in-between. We are neither masters nor slaves, so we are both masters and slaves.
Why argue?
We tend to imagine the universe as having static phenomena. Perhaps physically expanding, with unchanging laws. But like human laws, universal laws are made-up. These laws are a product of the physical thing that “thinks” them up.
This argument is reimagining the universe as a brain, and universal laws as things that the universe “thinks”. So laws can change (with a lot of effort) or be created (where it makes sense to). As opposed to exclusively being discovered - which would imply a static, comprehensible universe.