What Is Panpsychism?

In a world seemingly defined by a conflict between science and spirituality, panpsychism offers a fresh perspective that bridges the physical and metaphysical worlds. It suggests that consciousness is pervasive throughout the universe—every tiny particle possesses some mind-like quality. This idea opens up intriguing avenues for consideration about the nature of reality itself and where humans stand within the cosmos. But what exactly is panpsychism?

Panpsychism believes that consciousness is not limited to humans or animals. Instead, it is a basic characteristic of everything in the physical universe. According to this ancient philosophy, known by some as “mind dust,” every piece of matter has some built-in aspect of mentality – even down to an electron zipping around an atom or the farthest star in a distant galaxy.

You can trace panpsychism back to pre-Socratic thinkers like Thales, who said everything was “full of gods.” Throughout history, this idea pops up again and again. It made a comeback during the Renaissance with philosophers, including Spinoza, who called his theory “God or Nature,” – hinting that spirituality and awareness run through everything in the Universe.

In the 1800s, figures such as psychologist-philosopher William James toyed with panpsychism notions (though he did not call himself one). More recently, Alfred North Whitehead got behind something like panpsychism. He viewed consciousness as intrinsic (in-built) rather than out-of-the-blue (something coming from nothing) – which fits with how panpsychists see things.

Instead, it suggests that consciousness is an intrinsic feature of all matter—comparable to mass or energy. For example, rather than regard a rock as lifeless, one might credit it with some kind of elementary experience or a rudimentary kind of consciousness waiting to come into its own.

This way of thinking invites us to rethink what we mean by consciousness itself—possibly finding a seamless way to combine material (physical) things with mental (mind-related) ones when we talk about them. It could also provide fresh ways of looking at age-old problems, such as those surrounding minds and ethics—not forgetting how creatures feel about their environment.

Panpsychism is a theory about consciousness. It says that everything material has some kind of mind – or at least some aspect of mind. According to panpsychism, consciousness doesn’t just pop into existence when matter arranges itself in the right way (this view is sometimes called “emergentism”). Instead, consciousness has been present, in some form, all along – just as modern physics tells us space and time have been.

From this perspective, panpsychism can be seen as offering a new way of thinking about what the Universe is made of. It’s not just lots of little bits of dull stuff that don’t have any feelings (which is pretty much how most people think about rocks!). Rather, even something as simple as a rock involves an inconceivably vast number of almost unimaginably basic conscious experiences being bundled together somehow.

However, one big philosophical question that panpsychism has to grapple with is the “combination problem.” It asks how individual conscious bits—let’s say inside neurons, for example—combine to form unified subjective experiences in bigger organisms like humans.

If, for instance, every star in a galaxy has its own consciousness at some basic level, how does all that join up to create the consciousness of the galaxy itself (if it has one)?

Some panpsychists deal with this by suggesting theories akin to emergent properties, where even though something new might pop out when lots of things get together (like wetness from water molecules), we can’t yet understand whether there are laws about it from a fundamental perspective.

Certain panpsychist thinkers also hold the idea that laws may govern how consciousness combines, even if we consider it fundamental. Researchers in this area continue to work on this combination problem—it’s an unknown frontier when it comes to understanding what collectivity entails.

There are two main perspectives on how consciousness is found throughout the Universe: constitutive panpsychism and emergentist panpsychism.

Constitutive panpsychism holds that complex conscious creatures such as ourselves are made up of simpler elements of consciousness at a fundamental level. It’s akin to how the behavior of a beehive can be boiled down to individual bees, each performing relatively basic tasks.

Constitutive panpsychism says that our own experiences might similarly be built from the ground up, with untold numbers of tiny conscious constituents inside our brains.

On the other hand, emergentist panpsychism argues that though these micro-level entities might have their own kind of consciousness, the rich subjective experience of being a higher organism does not simply add up to more of the same thing.

Rather, it comes into view as a completely new kind of thing when lots of parts work together in just the right way. Just as an orchestra creates a melody, none of the individual musicians could on their own (this is called emergence).

Thinkers who like constitutive micropsychism say it’s like building a house out of Lego bricks (with each brick made from lots of tiny conscious things).

By contrast, fusionists such as Seager and Mørch say it’s more like how if you put two different chemicals together, they merge, their properties change entirely, and something new forms.

Arguments in Favor of Panpsychism

Those who support panpsychism have several persuasive points. One is the Continuity Argument. If you think about how life developed on Earth according to evolution, it seems there was a smooth progression from simple life forms to more complex ones.

But if consciousness only appears at some stage—say when animals with brains evolve—then this would be a radical break in that pattern. Panpsychism gets rid of the problem altogether by suggesting that consciousness is just a fundamental feature of matter. As matter organizes itself better (as in brains coming along), you get more types of experience, too.

It’s like saying that we see life gradually changing over time without any sudden jumps or starts. Maybe it’s similar to consciousness as well!

The Hegelian Argument suggests that reality is not random. Instead, it reflects a logical framework called the absolute. Some people equate this framework with how Geist (spirit) evolves and say it brings about everything we see.

If you take this view, consciousness isn’t an accident caused by matter alone. Instead, having minds is part of how the Universe continues to develop.

A good way to understand Hegel’s philosophy here is through an example: as a tiny seed becomes a huge tree but still seems to be the same thing throughout its life cycle – there must be something more than just biology going on.

Finally, the Agnostic Argument suggests that because we don’t currently understand how unconscious matter could create consciousness, it’s simpler not to posit such an emergence from nothing.

Instead, agnosticism within panpsychism takes no position on whether consciousness is created ex nihilo. Rather, it starts with consciousness as a given – much as one might acknowledge gravity without knowing where it comes from. One could compare this approach to recognizing gravity’s effects long before anyone formulated a complete theory of gravitation.

A lot of people have doubts about panpsychism because it doesn’t seem right when you first hear about it. Some say it’s hard to believe that something like an electron or a rock has a mind—even just a little bit of one—if it’s not doing anything at all. They might ask: what could possibly be going on inside that sun-warmed stone?

In fact, some critics suggest that saying these things are conscious (even slightly) when they aren’t interacting with their environment in any noticeable way becomes meaningless or useless. We may as well say they have fairies inside them.

Objections also arise regarding the issue of interaction. Critics ask how the consciousness attributed to fundamental particles could affect or contribute to the consciousness that complex beings such as humans possess.

How could the tiny experiences of particles join together to create the intricate pattern found in human consciousness? This problem resembles the combination problem and raises doubts about whether panpsychism can explain these interactions in a satisfactory way.

Lastly, there is an ethical problem for panpsychism: if everything has some degree of consciousness, then how should we think about moral decisions? Destroying a rock or drinking a glass of water might have ethical significance – yet taking account of this seems both unwieldy and impractical.

Critics say the theory blurs ethical responsibilities beyond recognition, meaning we would radically need to rethink how we treat all matter rather than just the animals we traditionally consider sentient.

Panpsychism proposes that all things in the universe possess some level of consciousness. This applies not only to individuals or animals but to everything. The idea has ancient roots and appeals to certain modern thinkers because it fills in any explanatory gaps about how living things came to have minds – even particles have some kind of rudimentary experience or feeling.

However, there is a puzzle: How do countless tiny feelings like these add up to human-style consciousness? Some proponents argue that human awareness simply results from adding together all these tiny conscious elements in our brains—just as bricks make a house.

Others say that when parts interact this way, they create something brand new. It’s a form of consciousness that doesn’t exist separately at lower levels – just as musical instruments brought together can produce melodies.

Critics are not convinced. Some find it difficult to believe that even boring rocks possess any type of awareness science might one day be able to detect.

And if we credit everything with having a mind, it could make activities such as cooking or building houses incredibly complicated because then we would have to worry about whether or not, say, the nails were getting hurt when we hammered them in!