Panpsychism

This article should be read in conjunction with my thoughts on why Philosophical Naturalism Cannot Account for Qualia

Panpsychism is the philosophical view that consciousness (mind or mind-like qualities) is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality, present in all matter, from subatomic particles to complex organisms, not just humans and animals. It offers a potential solution to the "hard problem of consciousness". It suggests complex consciousness arises from simpler forms of consciousness in fundamental entities, rather than emerging from purely non-conscious matter, though it faces the difficult combination difficulty of how these micro-experiences form unified macro-experiences.

Note: Micro-consciousness is a theoretical concept, not a scientifically established phenomenon with definitive proof/evidence

Here are the primary arguments used to refute panpsychism:

The Combination Problem

This is widely considered the most damning objection to panpsychism. It accepts the premise that atoms might have "micro-consciousness" but asks: How do billions of tiny, separate consciousnesses combine to form the singular, unified "I" that you experience?

Putting 100 separate people in a room does not create a "super-consciousness" that thinks all their thoughts at once. They remain 100 separate minds. Critics argue that a brain full of conscious atoms should result in billions of tiny minds, not one big one.

Subjectivity is inherently private. There is no known mechanism for multiple subjects to merge into a single new subject.

The Empirical & Physics Objection

Physicists and philosophers of science often reject panpsychism because it appears to conflict with our current understanding of the physical world.

 Panpsychists face a trap regarding what this consciousness actually does to the particle:

Scenario A (It does something): If an electron's consciousness affects its movement, it would violate the Standard Model of Physics. We can predict particle behavior with extreme precision; if mental forces were pushing particles around, we would have noticed the anomalies.

Scenario B (It does nothing): If the consciousness doesn't affect the particle's behavior, then it is epiphenomenal (causally useless). Evolution could not select for it, and it becomes a ghost property that explains nothing.

Critics argue panpsychism is antiscientific and unfalsifiable because it is impossible to test. Since we cannot measure the inner life of an electron, the theory can never be proven or disproven, making it more akin to fantasy than science.

The Emergence Argument (Redundancy)

This argument posits that panpsychism tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist by looking in the wrong place.

Critics argue consciousness is likely a result of structure (how things are arranged), not substance (what things are made of).

For example, "Wetness" is not a property of a single water molecule; it is an emergent property that happens when millions of molecules come together. You don't need to invent "proto-wetness" for every atom to explain the ocean. Similarly, you don't need "proto-consciousness" to explain the brain.

Occam’s Razor: Panpsychism adds a massive complication (trillions of minds in every object) to explain a localized phenomenon (brains). Materialists argue it is simpler to assume consciousness emerges from complex processing.

Note: Occam’s Razor is basically "The simplest explanations are most frequently the right ones."

The Problem of Discontinuity 

If consciousness is fundamental, it should apply everywhere. This leads to counter-intuitive conclusions that critics find absurd.

• Arbitrary Lines: Does a rock have a unified mind, or just a collection of mineral minds? If you cut a rock in half, do you now have two rock minds? Panpsychism struggles to define what constitutes a "conscious entity" versus a mere "pile of conscious stuff".

• Inanimate Suffering: If consciousness is ubiquitous, it raises ethical absurdities, such as whether a thermostat feels "hot" or if chopping a vegetable causes pain to its atoms.