Philosophy | Consciousness
Is the Universe simply a collection of inert material bits that go about their business following the laws of physics? Or is there more to it?
Consciousness is the “hard problem” of neuroscience, in contrast to the “easy” challenges of memory storage and retrieval or the possible neurological bases of mental diseases. The challenging issue concerns the fundamental question of how the brain’s chemical reactions and neuronal connections give rise to the experience of consciousness.
Neuroscience has come a long way in understanding the brain, but much about the mind remains a mystery. To this day, researchers still don’t know how the brain generates pleasant emotions like joy, the scent of rain, and, most importantly, self-awareness.
Both dualism and materialism offer foundational accounts of consciousness. According to materialists, all there is is physical matter. Consciousness arises from the material brain (how exactly is a mystery). Conversely, dualists maintain that the mind and body are distinct entities. Both of these points of view could be better. Both dualism and materialism fail to account for how immaterial awareness interacts with material reality.
Panpsychism offers an approach to this paradox. According to panpsychism, consciousness did not arise when brains grew sufficiently complex or as a result of evolution to fulfil any sort of survival necessity. On the contrary, it is an inherent property of matter.
To rephrase, all things are conscious. Not only do non-human animals possess consciousness, but so do people. It is also found in plants and extends to non-living entities. Consciousness is present in everything, from stones and stars to electrons and photons—even quarks. Some formulations of the theory even go so far as to claim that the cosmos has consciousness. (A form of panpsychism called cosmopsychism describes this view.)
Perhaps this is the most insane concept ever, even more so than the possibility of extraterrestrials hiding among us. However, an increasing number of reasonable and respectable philosophers hold panpsychism in high regard.
Although it may appear as a concept that emerged entirely from the psychedelic scene, panpsychism has a lengthy history. Some scientific communities have advocated panpsychism, including physicists Arthur Eddington, William James, and Alfred North Whitehead; philosophers and mathematicians Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead; and physicists Ernst Schrödinger and Max Planck. Though it fell out of favor in the latter half of the twentieth century, philosophers and scientists like Philip Goff, Christof Koch, Bernardo Kastrup, and David Chalmers have lately given panpsychism a second wind.
Proponents of panpsychism typically refrain from asserting that a photon possesses a consciousness comparable to that of an individual or a feline. Philosopher Philip Goff of Durham University in the United Kingdom argues persuasively for panpsychism in his book Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. “Panpsychism, as defended in contemporary philosophy, is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have a subjective experience of some kind,” Goff said in an essay for Philosophy Now, paraphrasing the theory. This isn’t necessarily suggesting anything complex, like ideas.
Instead, what Goff terms a photon’s “extremely rudimentary” consciousness is its minuscule amount of awareness. A honeysuckle aroma or the longing for a hot cup of tea results from many of these minute components coming together in a structured manner. It has become much easier to solve now. No “souls descending from an immaterial realm at the moment of conception” or “minds popping into existence as certain forms of complex life emerge” are necessary, according to Goff. Instead, our prideful consciousness and everything else about us is just a different configuration of the same components that make up matter in general. The human mind is not unique or remarkable; it is just a part of everything. It’s merely an intricate variant of a fundamental theme that permeates all substances.
According to philosopher David Chalmers, exploring panpsychism is practically inescapable when one thinks seriously about consciousness. Therefore, maybe it’s not strange that the concept is gaining traction again. Chalmers argues that the theory is just as implausible as other theories of consciousness, if not more so.
Well, panpsychism probably can’t be disproven. Nobody has yet devised an experiment to determine if your mailbox has a quark or a mental life. But that doesn’t imply scientists aren’t trying to find a solution. Neuroscientist Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin–Madison created the integrated information theory of consciousness (IIT). Though some have cast doubt on the idea, IIT maintains that consciousness is, in fact, a type of information that can be quantified scientifically.
But panpsychism has its detractors. Philosopher John Searle has been an outspoken critic of the idea for quite some time. Kevin Mitchell, a neuroscientist at Trinity College Dublin, wrote that panpsychism is “not even wrong.” Many contemporary philosophers share the view that British philosopher Keith Frankish expressed in an article published in Aeon: that awareness is neither universal nor absolute. That’s only a mirage.
However, the concept that everything is conscious is steadily gaining traction, as far-fetched as it may appear. It changes the way you perceive your surroundings.
Please follow me for more thoughtful articles. I Appreciate It!