Panpsychism

To explain the origin of anything, we must be clear about that which we are explaining. There seem to be two main meanings for the term consciousness. One might be called open in that it equates consciousness with awareness and experience and considers rudimentary sensations to have evolved at a specific point in the evolution of increasing complexity. But certainly the foundation for such sensation is a physical body. It is unclear, however, exactly what the physical requirements are for a (...) “central experiencer” to emerge in the course of evolution. Some suggest that it would require a basic brain, others a central nervous system, and others stipulate only a cellular membrane. The open definition is most often assumed by the so-called hard sciences. -/- The closed meaning of consciousness differentiates between a special sort of experience, i.e., conscious experience, and a special sort of awareness (i.e., self-awareness). This is the approach of psychoanalysis and psychology that accepts the existence of an unconscious mind. It is also the view of most phenomenological philosophers and psychologists (Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jacques Lacan, etc.). This entry discusses several scientific and philosophical views of consciousness and its origins. (shrink)

Any panpsychism building complex consciousness out of basic atoms of consciousness needs a theory of ‘mental chemistry’ explaining how this building works. This paper argues that split-brain patients show actual mental chemistry or at least give reasons for thinking it possible. The paper next develops constraints on theories of mental chemistry. It then puts forward models satisfying these constraints. The paper understands mental chemistry as a transformation consistent with conservation of consciousness rather than an aggregation perhaps followed by the creation (...) of something in addition. The paper suggests that this kind of mental chemistry alone yields a workable panpsychism. (shrink)

In this essay, I argue that A. N. Whitehead's novel concept of prehension only makes sense as a form of panpsychistic idealism. After making the case for this view, I critical evaluate Lewis Ford's interpretation of prehension from his compositional analysis of Whitehead's metaphysical works.

This public article presents three arguments for the plausibility of panpsychism: the view that sentience is a fundamental and ubiquitous element of actuality. Thereafter is presented a brief exploration of why panpsychism has been spurned. The article was commissioned by High Existence. -/- – Introduction – 1. The Genetic Argument – 2. The Abstraction Argument – 3. The Inferential Argument – Why Panpsychism is Spurned – End Remarks.

Why the central problem in neuroscience is mirrored in physics.

Non-technical introduction to Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory of consciousness.

The dominant way to define physical entities is by appeal to ideal physics (as opposed to current physics). However, it has been worried that physicalism understood in terms of ideal physics would be too liberal to rule out “psychism”, the view that mentality exists at the fundamental metaphysical level. In this article, I argue that whereas physicalism is incompatible with some psychist cases, such as the case of “phenomenalism” in which ideal physics adopts mental concepts to denote fundamental entities, physicalism (...) should accommodate a certain type of psychist case in which fundamental mental entities are denoted by non-mental concepts in ideal physics. In so doing, I propose a distinctive account of physical entities, which asserts that physical entities are entities denoted by non-mental natural concepts in ideal physics. Physicalism thus understood is expected to be neither too liberal nor too demanding. (shrink)

on synchronicity, the Fermi Paradox, the Turing Test, and more.

Upshot: The central issue of Consciousness in the Physical World is Russellian monism, which claims that consciousness could be ontologically reduced to intrinsic properties of physical objects. In contemporary discussions, Russellian monism is more broadly defined than Russell’s original version of neutral monism, and it even becomes a family of views. In this review, based on two major distinctions between Russellian monism and Russell’s neutral monism, we point out that these current re-interpretations not only extend Russell’s theory; some may also (...) put a heavy metaphysical burden on Russell’s construction of matter from experience. (shrink)

In this article, I am interested in dual-aspect monism as a solution to the mind-body problem. This view is not new, but it is somewhat under-represented in the contemporary debate, and I would like to help it make its way. Dual-aspect monism is a parsimonious, elegant and simple view. It avoids problems with “mental causation”. It naturally explains how and why mental states are correlated with physical states while avoiding any mysteries concerning the nature of this relation. It fits well (...) with our ordinary picture of the world, as well as with the scientific picture. It gives its rightful place to the phenomenal, qualitative, subjective character of experience, instead of reducing it or eliminating it. It does not unnecessarily multiply ontological categories. It can come in many versions, and is compatible with other interesting views, such as panpsychism. (shrink)

The assumption that known physical laws are sufficient for explaining mental phenomena is flawed from the outset. Qualities such as phenomenal redness do not exist within the known physical laws so by definition they are incomplete. Now assuming a new law was added that could explain how some physical property or vibration causes or is associated with phenomenal redness it would not be enough because it still wouldn’t explain how different qualities are bound together into a subjective unity. Assuming more (...) additional laws could now explain the popping into existence of subjective selves this also would still not be enough because a subjective self that cannot be directly observed nor indirectly observed via its effects vanishes into non-existence. This implies that subjective selves must have causal efficacy. But this would require still additional physical laws or perhaps an accommodated interpretation of quantum physics because there is no current understanding of how a mind can change the probability distribution of matter. But even if an expanded quantum physics was understood this would still not be enough because no general law can determine the indexical fact that I am me and you are you. -/- Then the hard problem of consciousness is real, non-trivial and when taken seriously appears to be actually separate problems. 1. How are qualia generated from purely physical activity? This appears to be a strictly deterministic process. 2. The so called binding problem. That is how is that I hear a sound and see a visual scene and feel a bodily sensation, all separate modalities that are unrelated, and yet I experience them all at the same time? 3. Can it be that I am causally efficacious? It certainly seems that the actual feelings of pain and pleasure serve some real purpose. Since conscious entities can never be directly observed and are only known through their effects, if they have no effects they disappear altogether. 4. The so called problem of indexicality. That is why I am me and not you. This seems to be a real fact above and beyond any objective fact. Eliminative materialism ignores the empirical evidence that phenomenal qualities exist and in doing so attains logical consistency. Other forms of emergence that try to explain qualia and give it a meaning while being restricted to physical closure are illogical. I explore these hard problems and arrive at a justification for a panpsychic interactive dualism. (shrink)

Consider the following argument If panpsychism is true, then the hard problem of consciousness is solved Physicalism is true Physicalism entails panpsychism. We conclude that The hard problem of consciousness is solved. This is a valid argument, and one whose conclusion has a certain appeal. What about the premisses? How exactly is panpsychism a solution to the problem of phenomenal consciousness? Who can take panpsychism seriously, and how can panpsychism be entailed by physicalism? A little forcing is assumed in suggesting (...) to consider a philosophical argument whose conclusion is panpsychism. But I think the exercise is worthwhile, provided we spell out all the consequences of forcing. (shrink)

Conscious beings are efficacious and that is how we can know where they exist. They are able to sense their environment and interact with it in a dynamic flexible goal oriented way. They interact with their immediate surroundings in their own characteristic manner. They are self movers but require the use of energy to move. Where would we find such fundamental mental beings, monads or natural individuals? I use science to speculate as to the answer to that question and arrive (...) at some surprising conclusions. The fundamental subjective beings exist at the level of elementary particles and animals with nervous systems but also at two intermediate levels within the living Earth. I conclude that on planet Earth there is a four level hierarchy of natural mentality. (shrink)

Encyclopedia entry about "Panpsychism".

Paper on structural realism and how its problems lend support to some kind of panpsychism.

In _Panpsychism in the West_, the first comprehensive study of the subject, David Skrbina argues for the importance of panpsychism -- the theory that mind exists, in some form, in all living and nonliving things -- in consideration of the nature of consciousness and mind. Despite the recent advances in our knowledge of the brain and the increasing intricacy and sophistication of philosophical discussion, the nature of mind remains an enigma. Panpsychism, with its conception of mind as a general phenomenon (...) of nature, uniquely links being and mind. More than a theory of mind, it is a meta-theory -- a statement about theories of mind rather than a theory in itself. Panpsychism can parallel almost every current theory of mind; it simply holds that, no matter how one conceives of mind, such mind applies to all things. In addition, panpsychism is one of the most ancient and enduring concepts of philosophy, beginning with its pre-historical forms, animism and polytheism. Its adherents in the West have included important thinkers from the very beginning of Greek philosophy through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to the present. Skrbina argues that panpsychism is long overdue for detailed treatment, and with this book he proposes to add impetus to the discussion of panpsychism in serious philosophical inquiries. After a brief discussion of general issues surrounding philosophy of mind, he traces the panpsychist views of specific philosophers, from the ancient Greeks and early Renaissance naturalist philosophers through the likes of William James, Josiah Royce, and Charles Sanders Peirce -- always with a strong emphasis on the original texts. In his concluding chapter, "A Panpsychist World View," Skrbina assesses panpsychist arguments and puts them in a larger context. By demonstrating that there is panpsychist thinking in many major philosophers, Skrbina offers a radical challenge to the modern worldview, based as it is on a mechanistic cosmos of dead, insensate matter. _Panpsychism in the West _will be the standard work on this topic for years to come. (shrink)

In The Analysis of Mind (1921), Bertrand Russell stresses the importance of William James’ late neutral monist view of consciousness for the studies in psychology. In so doing, he focuses on a topic whose roots can be traced back to the nineteenth-century European debate on physiology and scientific psychology. In this introductory paper I shall briefly outline the path that, starting from the revival of Kant in the German scientific debate, leads to both Ernst Mach’s and William James’ questioning the (...) value of the I or consciousness as a substance concept. (shrink)

The thesis of panpsychism is that throughout the natural universe there is mentality, although I prefer the term "mind". We human beings experience this mentality in everyday consciousness and by analogy we are able to assert that mentality is not confined to the human experience alone. The extent to which this mentality penetrates, or is imbued by, our natural world has been a subject for discussion in western schools of philosophy since the ancient Greeks and in the even more ancient (...) eastern schools of theosophy, such as Buddhism and the Hinduism of the Upanishads. I use the term "theosophy" here to bring a sense of esoteric speculation to the panpsychism debate. A recent resurgence of interest in panpsychism has recognised the inadequacy of the materialist perspective, and attempts have been made to resolve the main stumbling block, the mind-body/mind-matter problem, and to provide a realistic and adequate account of panpsychism. But, it is generally accepted by most of those interested in the debate and whose works I review, that so far this has not succeeded. Therefore, a new and more radical approach is required. It is the intention of my thesis to demonstrate that only when we break free from our dualistic perspective, a perspective reflective of our thinking mind, our language, and our cultural/social constructs, can we intuitively understand the true nature of the mind-body relationship. I will argue that the truth of this intuitive understanding becomes apparent when we experience what I have termed "personal panpsychic experiences," and that these experiences are epistemologically valid. These experiences give rise to knowledge if reality that I have called the "dual-aspect singularity" perspective. The "dual-aspect singularity" perspective acknowledges the dual nature of reality but asserts that any duality as such is merely aspectivism. As such everything that exists has both a mental and material aspect, neither of which is ontologically real, as together they form a singularity. I will argue that the "dual-aspect singularity" perspective resolves the mind-body mind-brain paradox. (shrink)

A central problem in the mind-body debate is the generation problem: how consciousness occurs in a universe understood as primarily non-conscious. This problem is particularly bothersome for physicalists. I argue that the generation problem stems from a non-critical presupposition about the nature of reality, namely, that the mental is an exception in the universe, a non-fundamental property. I call this presupposition mental specialism. Despite the fact that mental specialism dogmatically ingrained in the debate, there has been little reason offered either (...) to accept or reject it. And doing so would dissolve the generation problem. But rejecting mental specialism, though it would dissolve the generation problem, would mean accepting another anathema presupposition: panpsychism. The resistance to panpsychism stems from the perception that panpsychism runs counter to science, that it is based on dogmatic metaphysical arguments, and that it entails doctrines that cannot be accepted by science, such as mysteriousness. This perception is misguided and here I argue that a naturalized panpsychism, one that does not run contrary to science in these ways, can be developed and defended. I argue that consciousness emerges from proto-consciousness, the fundamental property that is disposed to give rise to consciousness. Proto-consciousness is not an arbitrarily posited property; following an important contemporary approach in neuroscience, I understand proto-consciousness as information. The thesis that consciousness emerges from proto-consciousness elicits a fatal problem with panpsychic theories, the combination problem. This problem is how to account for higher-order conscious properties emerging from proto-conscious properties. I solve the combination problem that by adopting Giuolio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness and demonstrating emerging higher-order conscious properties just is a system integrating information. Thus information is the fundamental property that, when integrated in a system such as a human being, is consciousness. Proto-consciousness is thus a natural property and the formulated panpsychic theory based upon information is a naturalized panpsychism. (shrink)

If we reject physicalism, for the reasons given in my 2011 book ‘Panpsychism,’ we can arrive at a variant of idealism that accepts the concrete existence of all entities discoverable by science, but argues that these are nothing over and above centres of experience that can perceive one another and act on their percepts. In this metaphysical system, all physical properties and laws reduce without remainder to mental dittos – length is used in this paper as an example. Adopting this (...) position resolves many difficulties in the philosophy of mind, including the problems of: the explanatory gap, mental causation, perception, qualia and zombies. (shrink)

This work makes the case for a variant of panpsychism with an idealist metaphysic. It does not deny the concrete existence of any entities discoverable from commonplace experience or by science (such as cats, rocks, molecules and quarks), but argues that all true entities (the entire furniture of the universe) are in essence nothing over and above centres of experience that can perceive one another and act on their percepts. All physical properties and laws reduce without remainder to mental dittos. (...) The system gives a lucid account of mental causation. The book critiques physicalism as obscure, perhaps even incoherent, and defends libertarian free will. (shrink)

Two issues stand unresolved in the literature on William James's philosophy. Why did James fail to complete the systematic metaphysical work, The Many and the One, that he began writing in 1902? And, does he in A Pluralistic Universe give up his philosophy of pure experience for panpsychism? I argue that both of these issues can be resolved by recognizing that soon after beginning work on The Many and the One, James came to see that a serious flaw existed in (...) his system. His solution to the problem of solipsism, based on his philosophy of pure experience, stood in direct contradiction to the theory of consciousness he had developed in his Principles of Psychology. I show that James's inability to eliminate this flaw while keeping all of his original system intact, was the likely reason he was unable to complete The Many and the One. I also show that he did eventually eliminate this flaw, but only after radically modifying his system. One of these modifications involved his rejecting the philosophy of pure experience for panpsychism. Much of my argument in the dissertation rests on the Miller-Bode notebooks, two notebooks that contain James's attempts to respond to objections by two of his contemporaries that identify the flaw in his system. I use these notebooks to establish that James was aware of the flaw, that he perceived it as devastating to his system, and that he tried for a number of years to eliminate it while keeping his system intact. These together, I argue, establish the plausibility of my claim that it was the existence of this flaw that kept him from completing The Many and the One. I also use the notebooks to document how James was finally led to make the modifications to his system that enabled him to eliminate the flaw, and that the move to panpsychism was one of these. This, along with my argument that all of these modifications play a central role in the argument of A Pluralistic Universe, establishes my claim that James ought to be understood as embracing panpsychism in that work. (shrink)

In his extraphysical speculations around the mid 20th century, the physicist Wolfgang Pauli proposed, together with the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung, a kind of 'dual-aspect monism' as a framework for conceiving of the mind-matter problem. It is discussed how this framework can be related to more recent developments in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of mind.