Panpsychism

← Encyclopedia

Every picture of the world has to find room for one awkward fact: there is something it is like to be a human being. Physics, which explains nearly everything else, describes quantities in motion and says nothing about how any of it could feel. Panpsychism is the proposal that the fact is awkward only because it has been filed in the wrong place. The view holds that experience is fundamental and ubiquitous in nature — that consciousness is not a latecomer assembled somewhere in the history of brains, but belongs to the basic constituents of the world, the way mass and charge do.

The first thing to say is what the view does not claim. Panpsychism is not the thesis that rocks think. The ubiquity belongs to the fundamental level, not to every object built from it: the claim is that a rock’s elementary parts have some experience, not that the rock does — David Chalmers notes that the panpsychist is committed to no mind for the number two, the Eiffel Tower, or the city of Canberra. Nor does anyone in the contemporary debate hold that electrons hope or quarks suffer: the live position is panexperientialism — bare experience at the base of things, its complexity thinning continuously from human beings down to the fundamental entities — not the view that thought is everywhere, which has essentially no academic defenders.

The idea is as old as Western philosophy itself. Thales argued from magnets and amber — stones that move other things — that soul was in them, and Aristotle records the larger thought: some say soul is mingled in the whole universe, which is perhaps why Thales held that “everything is full of gods.” Plato gave the cosmos a soul of its own — the world-soul of the Philebus and the Timaeus — the Stoics ran a reasoning fire through all matter, and the Neoplatonists made Soul the level of reality through which nature is generated and governed. The word itself is Renaissance — coined by Francesco Patrizi in the sixteenth century, one of the five Italians who revived the ensouled cosmos. Bruno was already drawing the modern distinction: a table is not animate as a table; the soul is in the matter that composes it. Spinoza held everything that exists to be animate in differing degrees. Leibniz built the world from monads, simple substances whose only workable model was a perceiving one. And the nineteenth century was the doctrine’s heyday: Fechner’s ensouled Earth, Royce’s world-self, Clifford’s mind-stuff, defended by an argument still in use — that in the continuous line of evolutionary descent there is no point at which mind could first have broken in.

William James stands at the hinge, facing both ways. In 1890 he wrote the objection that still governs the debate. Against Clifford’s theory that minds are built from elementary bits of mind, he answered that a hundred feelings, packed as tightly as possible, remain each shut in its own skin; “the private minds do not agglomerate into a higher compound mind.” Then he spent his last decade as a panpsychist anyway, ending in a pluralistic world he judged almost identical with Fechner’s. Whitehead made occasions of experience the ultimate constituents of his process metaphysics. In 1927 Bertrand Russell’s The Analysis of Matter set down the observation on which the view’s modern fortunes rest: physics delivers equations for the abstract properties of matter’s changes, but “as to what it is that changes… physics is silent.” Eddington, lecturing the same year, reached the same conclusion independently. Then the subject went dark: from the 1930s to the century’s end, under physicalism’s dominance and the positivist hostility to metaphysics, panpsychism nearly disappeared from Western philosophy, and the Russell–Eddington insight was largely forgotten.

The revival has a date. In 2006 Galen Strawson published “Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism,” and the argument was an inversion: not an alternative to physicalism but its only honest form. A realistic physicalism, Strawson argued, must begin from the one natural fact known with certainty — experience — rather than from the assumption that the terms of physics exhaust concrete reality. Ordinary emergence is intelligible: liquidity arises from molecules that are not liquid, but the explanation runs entirely among notions of the same kind. Experience arising from the utterly non-experiential would be emergence of another order — brute, unexplainable in principle — and “brute emergence is by definition a miracle every time it occurs.” Nagel had pressed a version of the argument in 1979; Chalmers had named the hard problem of consciousness in 1995; Philip Goff carried the case forward through the 2010s. The engine underneath is the position called Russellian monism. Physics describes structure and dynamics — what mass and charge do, never what they intrinsically are. Something must underlie the dispositions, and the only intrinsic nature ever encountered is consciousness, in the matter of a brain; the most parsimonious hypothesis, Goff argues, is that matter outside brains is continuous with matter inside them. The payoff is the whole appeal: consciousness becomes the intrinsic nature of the physical, doing causal work inside a causally closed world — answering at one stroke dualism’s interaction problem and physicalism’s hard problem. Chalmers, who named Russellian monism, frames panpsychism as a synthesis respecting the best argument for materialism and the best argument against it — and states his credence exactly: not confident the view is true, not confident it is false.

The objections are serious, and the serious panpsychists say so. The first is the incredulous stare: experience in an electron is, for many philosophers, simply unbelievable — and Searle has pressed the harder charge that the claim is not false but meaningless. The reply: common descent from apes, the slowing of time, and superposition were unbelievable too; theories are judged on explanatory power and parsimony, not fit with common sense. The deeper objection is the combination problem, agreed on all sides to be the hardest the view faces. The name is William Seager’s, from 1995; the problem is James’s, from 1890. How do many small experiences make one large one? Chalmers’s taxonomy splits it three ways: subjects — it seems conceivable that micro-subjects exist without composing any further subject, an argument worryingly identical in form to the one panpsychists run against physicalism; qualities — how the enormous palette of colors, sounds, and smells could arise from a presumably tiny palette of micro-qualities; structure — experience seems smooth and unified where the brain’s microstructure is discrete and particulate. Panpsychists themselves generally concede that no wholly adequate solution yet exists; the comparison they offer is Darwinism before genetics — a research program, not a finished theory. Last, the exclusion worry: if physics already accounts for all causation dispositionally, the intrinsic natures seem to do no work of their own — epiphenomenalism, returned in a surprising place.

The nearest scientific neighbor is Integrated Information Theory — Giulio Tononi’s 2004 proposal, championed by neuroscientist Christof Koch — which identifies consciousness with integrated information, measured by the quantity Φ. Very simple systems can have nonzero Φ, so the theory makes consciousness widespread, if minimal — but the adjacency should be stated precisely. IIT does not hold that all systems are conscious; mere aggregates and feed-forward systems are excluded, and Tononi and Koch, accepting some elements of panpsychism and rejecting others, fault the classical doctrine for offering no positive laws of how mind works. Koch’s own formula is the careful one: IIT is a “scientifically refined version” of panpsychism. The relation is adjacency, not identity — though that working neuroscientists engage the view at all is part of why philosophy takes it seriously again.

Set against the longer history — and this is an interpretive reading, not a finding of the field — what returned in 2006 is recognizably the world-soul. The doctrine that Thales, the Timaeus, the Stoics, Bruno, and the Hermetic writers on the anima mundi held as vision reappears as a conclusion driven by inference: from the silence of physics about intrinsic natures, from the impossibility of brute emergence, from the demand that consciousness do causal work. Cosmopsychism — the variant in which the one fundamental conscious thing is the universe itself, smaller minds grounded in the whole — is, by the field’s own description, the contemporary analogue of Fechner’s and Royce’s world-soul. The traditions saw it and then said it; the analytic panpsychists were argued into it, often reluctantly, and stripped from it everything the older doctrine prized — gods, spirits, intention, address. The resemblance is real and the lineage is direct, and they are not the same thing: one was a perception of a living cosmos, the other an inference from what the equations leave out. What has not changed is the hard part. How the many small minds stand to the one great mind was the world-soul tradition’s deepest question. It is the combination problem now — the same question, returned in formal dress, and still open.

→ Related: Hard Problem Of Consciousness · Emanation · Mysticism