Panpsychism: The Universe Isn't Dead—It's Conscious!
This vision is both humbling and empowering, offering a new way to understand our place in the universe and the profound mystery of existence itself.
In the vast tapestry of existence, where galaxies swirl in cosmic dance and subatomic particles hum in the quantum fields, one of the most profound questions remains unanswered: What is the actual nature of consciousness?
For centuries, consciousness has been viewed as a mysterious byproduct of complex biological processes, emerging only when matter reaches a certain level of complexity, as in the human brain.
However, an ancient and increasingly revived philosophical idea—panpsychism—proposes a radical shift in perspective: the universe is not just a collection of mindless matter but is fundamentally imbued with consciousness at every level.
This idea suggests that consciousness is not an emergent property but a fundamental aspect of reality itself, permeating all of existence.
The Limits of the Traditional View
The dominant and historic scientific worldview, rooted in materialism, posits that the universe is made up of inert matter governed by the laws of physics, and that consciousness somehow arises when this matter organizes itself in particularly complex ways, such as in a brain.
This essentially mechanical/Cartesian perspective, while successful in explaining many aspects of the physical world, has struggled to account for the subjective experience—the qualia—that defines consciousness.
The “hard problem” of consciousness, as coined by philosopher David Chalmers, asks how and why physical processes in the brain give rise to the rich tapestry of experiences, emotions, and thoughts that characterize conscious life. Despite advances in neuroscience, this question remains largely unanswered.
Panpsychism offers a solution to this dilemma by flipping the problem on its head: rather than trying to explain how consciousness arises from non-conscious matter, it suggests that consciousness was there all along.
According to this view, all matter, from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxy, possesses a form of consciousness, albeit in much simpler forms than what we experience as humans.
Consciousness All the Way Down
The core idea of panpsychism is elegantly simple: consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe, much like mass, charge, or spin. Just as every particle has mass and charge, it also has a tiny element of consciousness.
This doesn’t mean that electrons have thoughts or feelings, but rather that they have a basic form of subjective experience, a "proto-consciousness" that is vastly simpler than human awareness.
The richness of human consciousness, then, is not a sudden emergence but a complex arrangement of simpler conscious elements that have been present throughout the history of the universe.
In this view, the universe is like a vast, interconnected web of consciousness, with every node—every particle, atom, and molecule—contributing its own minute form of awareness.
This interconnectedness could explain why consciousness feels so unified and holistic to us; our minds are not isolated phenomena but part of a grander, cosmic consciousness that is woven into the very fabric of reality.
Understanding consciousness
This conversation has been going on for over 400 years, since Galileo Galilei made a groundbreaking discovery: many everyday phenomena, such as a ball rolling down an incline or a chandelier gently swaying, adhere to precise mathematical laws. This insight laid the foundation for modern science, and Galileo is celebrated as one of its founding figures.
However, Galileo himself recognized that not everything could be quantified or understood through mathematics. What we think are “real” are actually constructs of our own consciousness acting on input from our senses.
"Thus,” Galileo wrote, “I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on are no more than mere names so far as the object in which we place them is concerned, and that they reside only in the consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be wiped away and annihilated."
In other words, they’re only “real” if there is a conscious observer of them. I explored this in some detail here last December, asking what it would mean if everything was actually imbued with consciousness, so instead of us simply perceiving a cold, dead reality we’re actually continually interacting, even at the level of cells and even atoms and subatomic particles, with an entirely conscious universe?
Since Galileo’s time, physical sciences have advanced remarkably, explaining the workings of everything from the smallest subatomic particles to the vastness of galaxy clusters. Yet, the challenge of explaining consciousness — how we experience seemingly subjective things like colors and tastes that different people (and species) experience in different ways — remains unsolved.
Neuroscientists have identified neural correlates of consciousness, or brain states that align with specific mental experiences, but they have not unraveled how physical matter, like the brain, gives rise to conscious experience in the first place. As philosopher Colin McGinn poignantly observed:
“How could the aggregation of millions of individually insentient neurons generate subjective awareness? We know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness, but we have, it seems, no understanding whatever of how this can be so. It strikes us as miraculous, eerie, even faintly comic.
“Somehow, we feel, the water of the physical brain is turned into the wine of consciousness, but we draw a total blank on the nature of this conversion. Neural transmissions just seem like the wrong kind of materials with which to bring consciousness into the world, but it appears that in some way they perform this mysterious feat.”
The Philosophical Appeal of Panpsychism
Panpsychism offers several advantages over traditional materialist views. First, it dissolves the hard problem of consciousness by removing the need to explain how non-conscious matter gives rise to consciousness. If consciousness is already present in all matter, the question becomes not one of emergence, but of combination: how do simpler forms of consciousness combine to form the rich, complex experiences we associate with higher organisms like humans?
This perspective also aligns with certain intuitive and spiritual notions that many people have about the universe. The idea that the universe is alive, conscious, and interconnected resonates with various religious and philosophical traditions that see mind and matter as inseparable. In this way, panpsychism bridges the gap between science and spirituality, offering a worldview that is both scientifically plausible and deeply meaningful.
Furthermore, panpsychism offers a fresh perspective on the nature of life and the ethical considerations that arise from it. If all matter is conscious, then the distinction between living and non-living, sentient and non-sentient, becomes less clear-cut. This could lead to a more compassionate and holistic approach to the natural world, where the rights and dignity of all forms of matter are recognized, not just those that exhibit complex behaviors.
Challenges and the Path Forward
Despite its appeal, panpsychism is not without its challenges. One of the primary objections is the so-called “combination problem”: how do tiny, simple forms of consciousness combine to create the rich, unified experiences that we are familiar with? Critics argue that without a clear explanation of this process, panpsychism remains speculative.
However, proponents of panpsychism, like philosopher Philip Goff, argue that this problem, while significant, is no more mysterious than the hard problem of consciousness in materialism. In fact, the combination problem might be more tractable than explaining how consciousness could emerge from entirely non-conscious matter.
Moreover, panpsychism pushes the boundaries of what we consider “scientific.” Consciousness, by its very nature, is subjective, making it difficult to study using traditional scientific methods, which rely on objective observation and measurement. However, this does not necessarily invalidate panpsychism; instead, it calls for an expansion of our scientific paradigms to include methods that can account for subjective experience.
Conclusion: A Conscious Universe
Panpsychism invites us to see the universe not as a cold, lifeless machine but as a living, conscious entity. This perspective does not diminish the achievements of science but, I believe, enriches our understanding of the cosmos by reintroducing consciousness into the very fabric of reality.
In a panpsychist universe, we are not isolated minds in a sea of matter; we are participants in a vast, interconnected web of consciousness that spans the entire cosmos.
This vision is both humbling and empowering, offering a new way to understand our place in the universe and the profound mystery of existence itself.
It’s definitely something to consider, though. It STILL does not help with knowing what the heck “consciousness” actually IS — But we don’t know why energy either attracts itself to itself {opposite charges attract} or repels itself {like charges repel}. What’s THAT all about? And what is gravity?
Oh, there’s lots we can measure and predict and STILL not understand.
I often think our “consciousness” kind of grows out of the nearly infinite feed-back loops among the neurons of our brains, arranged “just so” that we know who we are, each one of us — which makes me wonder, once we create enough world-wide-web feedback loops, if the Internet will become sentient, whether we try to make it so, or not.
If “consciousness” is a quality of every thing and non-thing that exists in he universe — being there in small parts that become self-aware as they aggregate — hmmmm, the feedback loops thingy still works … Maybe it’s proto-consciousness, requiring a critical mass and specifically formed structures before it becomes self-aware. After all, in a coma, we still have a lot of brain activity running a body, but no awareness that we can measure.
Interesting to think about — and yet, STILL {even though i LIKE to contemplate whether the universe might be an aware creature, it is still in the realm of conjecture and play. No way, currently, to know.
But fun to think on.
Mr. Hartmann, like Mr. OBrien, I am moved also to ask the question: we still do not know what consciousness is. Even if I grant that you are correct and there is consciousness in everything; I still wonder about what Mr. OBrien asks: What is consciousness?
I think you and Mr. OBrien have created an example of what in Mathematics is called the Russell Frege Paradox. I first considered it as an undergrad at the Univ. of Mich. many years ago. Without stating it in its math. form of Set Theory, I can present a linguistic/non-mathematical analogue:
There is one universal statement or axiom and it is: everything changes.
In my youth I argued with my religious brother in law about his god. He said his god had no limits. I asked him if his god could create a stone so heavy that god could not lift it. If god could not lift the stone, then he has a limitation. If god cannot create such a stone, then that inability is his limitation. This is another example of a Russell Frege paradox. An example that theologians argued about long before Russell or Frege were born. Russell claimed to have found a way out of this paradox. But I cannot state it without using set Theory, which I will not try to get into here. Suffice to say that all Russell was saying is that such paradoxes are not permissible in our system of Logic. I am not certain that constitutes a resolution to the Paradox.
One could say that because I cannot find empirical evidence to disprove your claim that consciousness is universal; there are no grounds upon which I should reject it. But this kind of argument creates more problems. Prior to Neil Armstrong, nobody had been to the surface of the Moon; thus, the claim that the Moon is covered with green cheese deserved the same claim to veracity as the claims of geologists who said that it was not.
I neither agree nor disagree with you on this claim of universal consciousness.
However, I think the belief that consciousness exists only on the Earth is Epistemologically and Cosmologically similar to the ancient claim that the Earth was the center of the universe. It is so narrow and limited as to be absurd. Just as absurd is the notion that life spontaneously sprang into existence out of inanimate chemicals here on Earth. The development of life, especially intelligent life is quite UNlikely on planets because of the huge force of gravity which planets create. This huge force must be overcome if the inanimate chemicals are to arrange themselves in the form and proper sequence to produce intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe this spontaneous development could occur. It is more reasonable to believe that life and intelligence exists inside the immense interstellar clouds. There are vast volumes inside them with little or no concentration of gravity. There are vast volumes in them with temperatures much beneficial to life. There are almost unimaginable amounts of raw materials in the form of the correct elements and molecules to form the structures of living organisms. The energy required is supplied by the countless stars which are great sources of energy in more than one form, especially radiation. And by the way, what is the source of ALL energy
and therefore all life here on our planet?
It is more reasonable to believe that life has been deposited on the surface of this planet as it passes through interstellar clouds. Furthermore, all the necessary building blocks to continue the reproduction of life on the planet has also been deposited by passage through such clouds. The next question that seems to be begged is; does the cloud contain consciousness? I believe the answer to that is yes. It can be demonstrated by a combination of both empirical evidence and mathematics.
First we must examine Darwin's notion of evolution from a purely mathematical perspective. When we do this it becomes obvious that he was wrong about how evolution works. Evolutionary changes cannot occur as a process of "natural selection" because it is not mathematically possible. Edward Blyth came up with a theory of evolution long before Darwin or Wallace, and he was probably closer to the truth. But he has been neglected, and even reviled perhaps, in some circles as a religious nut. Let me present two bits of evidence that something is wrong with evolutionary theory as we currently understand it.
1) First an empirical example.
In American Museum Novitates No. 706 March 1934, Frank E. Lutz and E. N. Grisewood published 'Reactions of Drosophila to 2537 Angstrom Radiation.' They produced the 2537 angstrom light with a mercury arc lamp. Radiation of 2537 Angstroms from the sun does not penetrate the ozone layer so it does not reach the Earth's surface. This is fortunate for humans because this wavelength of light is not visible to the human eye but it is harmful to the human eye. The question which is obvious to us should be: how is it that the fly's eye can see and "react" to a wavelength of light which has never reached the Earth from the sun? The Darwinian theory says that human abilities, and all creature's abilities have "evolved" through a process of "natural selection" over time. How can these drosophila have evolved a reaction to a stimulus which has, on Earth, never occurred naturally? Something is wrong here. Should we say there are exceptions to "natural selection"? And if so, how many? How many exceptions should we accept. Or should we reject Darwin's version of evolution? There is more to be said if we look into the literature.
2) Second, a mathematical example.
There is a problem with permutations and combinations if we believe in Darwin's version of evolution based on natural selection. Genes are changed (or mutated) because radiation of a cosmic origin causes the reproduction of the next generation's DNA to be scrambled into a new form. The next generation's genes are different because of this scramble, or jumble, or mix up. or whatever you want to call the mutation. Most of the new forms are not advantageous for the next generation, so they are less likely to be passed on. In fact most of the mutations are downright harmful, so they contribute to the disappearance of the genotype and phenotype in the future. Darwin claims that those new types which are favored by environmental conditions are more likely to survive and pass on their mutated genes to the future. The two most important types of favorable conditions are 1) availability of nutrients in the environment and 2) ability to successfully reproduce offspring. We must ask ourselves; How many possible combinations of new genotypes are possible when each mutation occurs? Let us consider only blood types and nothing else, and we shall see that there is simply not enough time for the proper kind of blood to be evolved if the mutations are simply left to chance, to probability. There are 20 kinds of amino acids in hemoglobin and in most other proteins. There are 141 amino acids in the alfa chain in our genes. The number of different ways that chains which are 141 amino acids in length can be formed from 20 different kinds is: (20) to the 141st power. This number is more than all the atoms in the known universe. So, what is the probability that by shear probability a new genotype and phenotype could appear which is favorable to survival under Earthly conditions? So close to zero that it might as well be zero. The only way we can believe that nevertheless, against such unimaginably unfavorable odds (zero, really) the correct genotype appears which favors survival; is to believe that there is PURPOSE built right into the evolutionary process. No matter how far out this proposition sounds; I believe there is some consciousness, some intelligence in the universe which gives evolution this purpose. In fact, purpose presupposes consciousness. I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god. But it seems to me that there clearly exists a non-human consciousness. I believe it exists in interstellar clouds. Not in the atoms and particles exactly, but it is there.