consciousness

I have long suspected that panpsychism represents the most likely explanation of how consciousness works. My evidence for this claim is laid out below. That said, I am not an expert in philosophy of mind, so take this with a grain of salt. I am certainly open to constructive critiques, questions, and discussion as well!

Supporting points

Organism complexity gradient argument

There appears to be a hierarchy of cognitive complexity ranging roughly down from humans to other primates to other large mammals (e.g. dogs and pigs) to smaller organisms (e.g. mice and rats) to insects to microorganisms to subcellular molecular systems to molecules to atoms to subatomic particles. At what point does consciousness end? There is no clear dividing line between “conscious” and “not conscious”. Thus, some matter may have exceedingly simple cognition, but there is likely not any matter lacking some form of primitive consciousness or experiential qualia.

Lack of real boundaries between brain, body, and environment

Approaching the complexity gradient from a different perspective, one can see that the brain is made of matter and is physically embedded in a body that is also made of matter. Furthermore, the body is physically embedded in an environment made of matter. Where does the “conscious part” end? How does one distinguish between atoms at the edge of the brain which may be thought to participate in conscious processes and atoms at the edge of the pia mater which some may argue do not participate in conscious processes? Furthermore, if a properly configured brain-brain interface was built (think of an electronic cord that physically bridges two people’s brains), it is highly plausible that the two people would experience some of each other’s qualia. Thus, the only real barrier to conscious experiences “spreading” between different organisms seems to be the accuracy of data transfer.

Dualism/supernatural is implied if panpsychism is false

Assume that panpsychism is false. Also assume that the complexity gradient argument holds, implying that there is no clear boundary between conscious and non-conscious material. In this case, where would consciousness exist? It would need to either occupy a sharply defined subset of the universe or need to exist outside of the material universe (i.e. as a supernatural force). But if the gradient argument does not allow us to define a specific subset where consciousness exists, then the only option remaining is for consciousness to exist outside of the material universe. If monist physicalism holds, then panpsychism must be true.

Panpsychism may address the hard problem through physical equivalency

The hard problem confronts many theories of consciousness. In one form of the hard problem, there is the argument that you could have complete mechanistic understanding of how the brain gives rise to a given conscious percept such as the percept of seeing the color red without actually knowing anything about the subjective experience of seeing the color red. However, this may not be true if everything is conscious since it would not be truly possible to have a complete mechanistic understanding of a percept without being physically identical to the matter (e.g. a human) experiencing said percept. Therefore, panpsychism may at least partially address the hard problem of consciousness.

Addressing objections

Reportedly non-conscious parts of brain may actually have qualia

There is neuroscientific evidence that some parts of the brain are active during conscious processing and some parts are not active (subconscious). Yet this is based on the idea that the patient who reports conscious awareness of stimuli represents a unitary entity. What if subcomponents of the brain are instead like different “people”. Perhaps your cerebellum does experience qualia, but just doesn’t transfer most of the data needed to perceive these qualia to your prefrontal cortex. In this way, the conscious parts of the brain would be the ones that have detailed “conversations” with the part of the brain directly involved in the patient’s reporting to the examiner. This goes back to the idea that information transfer may be the only limiting factor in preventing the whole universe from acting as a hive mind. Some parts of the universe do not transfer accurate information to other parts of the universe, but this does not mean that any part of the universe is unconscious.

Anatomy of a rock’s central processing

Some contend that panpsychism is intuitively ludicrous by pointing to the idea that a rock could not possibly be conscious. But consider the following scenario. A rock is illuminated by sunlight on one half of its surface while a shadow from a tree covers the other half. The surface of the rock acts a sensory organ. The rate of diffusion of heat through the rock is governed by factors like the shapes of dense granules packed into the rock’s interior and the composition of the different parts of the rock. The interior of the rock thus acts as a cognitive processor. When the heat comes out from the shadowed side of the rock, different parts of the surface will emit heat at different rates due to the processing that happened inside the rock. The shadowed side of the rock thus acts as a motor output. Certainly, the rock may not have a very accurate model of the world or a system for remembering, predicting, and reflecting. The rock is thus unlikely to have much for self-awareness. Yet it seems plausible that the rock still experiences some form of primitive and noisy qualia. Thinking of the rock in this way makes panpsychism seem less ludicrous.

Illustration of “sensory, integrative/cognitive, and motor” processes that may occur within a rock.