22 | Philosophy, Panpsychism, and the Consciousness of Things

Welcome to the Cow Behind the Barn: A podcast exploring humanity, the world, and the divine, as experienced and interpreted by an artist. I’m Kevin Caldwell, a co-finder of the Table Collective.

I am back to rocks again! I am continuing the exploration of whether non-human things such as animals, plants, and rocks might be conscious in some way. And now, after several Episodes drawing from major religious sources and quantum physics, I am turning to philosophy. 

Which is like saying I am in a rowboat heading across the Atlantic. There is some exaggeration there, but philosophy does feel like an ocean. And to get across it I know I need a way to focus, or to chart the course. 

So, I am back to rocks as a starting point. 

Rocks are like a symbol for all the types of things we find it hardest to imagine might be conscious. I suppose most of us will sympathize with the words of this geologist, quoted in an article I have cited previously, (from a 2023 piece in the Guardian). Here’s the quote:  

“As a geologist, no, rocks are not conscious. They are not aware of their being, nor do they make conscious decisions.”

Seems obvious. Common sense. I will leave aside the implicit (but untested) definition of consciousness embedded in that conclusion (i.e., consciousness means being aware of one’s existence and making conscious decisions). 

I want to jump to something said by that same geologist:

“But also, as a geologist who has spent a long time working on granites…there is something special about them. The granites define a certain type of landscape and therefore character of place. They come with their myths and legends and are said to whistle in different ways in certain weathers. Generations of artists and writers have been inspired by the granites…Could rocks be conscious? Maybe.”

The geologist is a beautiful example of how different ways of knowing are important in our human experience. The science told them, “no” while their imaginative and artistic senses told them, “maybe.”

That is a point I have been trying to make, really throughout the podcast, that we have different ways of knowing. Thus, my exploration of religions and physics thus far, and my incorporation of art, and so, the ways of knowing that we refer to as imagination.

 

Guiderails

How does this help me focus as I launch myself into the philosophy ocean in my little rowboat? To switch metaphors, I need some guiderails.

My first guiderail is to focus for now only on “things” that are generally considered to lack consciousness. This is why I keep coming back to rocks! Later I will come back to see how what I discover may have implications for how I understand consciousness relative to more complex things and beings, like human beings.

Second, I am focusing my attention on what philosophy might say about the ways I have described different dimensions of consciousness. In the course of the last Episodes, I have considered a number of different definitions of consciousness, ranging from “it is an illusion, just a meaningless function of matter” to “it is everything we experience, physically, emotionally, mentally.” And in between those extremes are the definitions I noted above related to decision making and problem solving and self-awareness, etc.  

But I did not adopt any of those, nor try to make my own definition. I have taken a descriptive approach in which I include two rather general elements of consciousness: experience and awareness. I see those potentially exhibited in different ways, and as a result I developed a multi-dimensional approach, specifically 4 dimensions: 

One Dimensional Consciousness: a “subject” (which in this case could be a thing, like a rock), experiences what happens (in some way), but is not aware of experiencing it (so, as I put it in a prior Episode, whether the rock feels anything or not when being crushed, it does experience it, the crushing happens, and the rock is crushed…that is an experience). 

Two Dimensional: a subject experiences what happens to it and is aware of experiencing it.

Three Dimensional: a subject experiences what happens, is aware of experiencing it, and is aware of being aware. 

Multi-Dimensional: a subject experiences all of the above themselves, but also in the first person, we might say, of other subjects. This is beyond the level of “things, or even humans, I presume. 

 The third guiderail is really a point of comparison I will employ. I want to see what philosophers might say about the tentative conclusions I came to after exploring the ways that religious heritages and quantum physics inform the conversation about consciousness. Here is, so far, my most concise version of that: 

If consciousness and reality are entangled, then it follows, for me at least, that everything in the cosmos might be conscious, or that at the very least, if the things in the universe are not conscious themselves, they are at least deeply connected with consciousness in ways that affect how they behave at the level of their sub-atomic particles. 

So, three guiderails:

• focus on the things we probably assume are least likely to be conscious
• use my descriptive approach employing the concepts of “experience” and “awareness.”
• test my working conclusion about the cosmos and consciousness 

So, rocks. Do they experience anything? Are they aware? Are they connected in any way to consciousness? Of course, not all philosophers are interested in what rocks have to say or what they think about all of this! But I am.

I begin to row my boat into the ocean and start with the field within philosophy generally referred to as the “philosophy of mind.”  

 

Philosophy of Mind

The philosophy of mind covers all philosophical topics pertaining to the mind and mental states. Its subtopics are all little oceans of their own! Rationality, mental states, emotions, logic, and more all fall under this umbrella. Consciousness is just one of those sub-topics. 

Where does consciousness come from, what is it, and what things possess it, are all related topics in philosophical reflection on consciousness. It is no surprise that the number of theories put forward to explain consciousness are difficult to keep track of, there are so many. And they sub-divide and gather complexity as they develop. Just to name a few of the larger “tribes” within the philosophy of mind “nation”: Dualism, Eliminativism, Illusionism, Idealism, Phenomenalism, Monism, and the list goes on.

Instead of looking at each theory separately I will try to boil things down to what I would call “approaches” or starting points or working hypotheses. Given the way that philosophical reflection works, both with individual philosophers and within the philosophical “tribes” so to speak, there is a circular nature to the relationship between hypotheses and conclusions. A starting point may initiate a journey, shaped by questions, challenges, new insights, and a return to the starting point. The return is always accompanied by a fresh set of insights and modifications, and new questions. Which become, in fact, a new starting point, and so on.

So, here are three major starting points which I see as three ways of seeing, three assumptions about consciousness:

 

Functionalism

Functionalism approaches the question of consciousness with the assumption that the important thing is not what it is, nor where it is. What is important is how it works, what it does.

So, mental states are not to be explained by their intrinsic make up, what they “are,” but by their relationships with what we might call inputs and outputs, where inputs might be sensory stimuli for example, or experiences, and outputs might be the subsequent behaviors we engage in, or changes to other mental states. What matters, again, is not why or from where or even “what” consciousness consists of, but what matters is what it does, what does that “thing” we call consciousness do. Hence, functionalism.

 

Reductionism/Materialism:

First, just to be clear, that word materialism is not about “consumerism.” In this case, materialism is used in the sense that matter is all there is.

This is the position which equates all mental activity with brain activity, meaning, anything we might associate with consciousness is simply equivalent to, and identical with, brain states/events/processes. To put it another way, we can boil every thought process, emotion, awareness of things and of self, down into the mechanical parts of the electro-chemical processes of the physical brain. 

Functionalism and Reductionism are not mutually exclusive of course. Functionalism may be describing how the materialist, biological assumptions of consciousness works, for example.

There is another approach.

 

Panpsychism

Panpsychism, a word which comes from the Greek words pan, meaning "all", and psychē, meaning "soul," is the view that all things, not just human beings or human mental states, are conscious or at least associated with consciousness. A revised version of the theory, panprotopsychism, suggests that everything is at least protoconscious, or pre-conscious, not currently exhibiting consciousness in any form we might understand it.

Given that the third of my three guiderails was the working conclusions about consciousness and the cosmos drawn from physics and religion, it seems that spending my time with panpsychism is called for.

 

Rocks and Panpsychism

Panspychism very consciously developed in conversation with quantum science, which as we have seen, describes the sub-atomic particle layer of reality as behaving as if it were conscious (functionalists would feel at home here, reductionist forms of materialism much less so). In dialogue with quantum physics, panpsychism proposes that all things have mind-like qualities. 

Beyond the brief definition above, what else can we say? It is important to note that there are a variety of forms of the theory, so we are not talking about one monolithic set of concepts. However we can summarize some of the more important ideas in the theory. I will name three. 

 

Consciousness is:

1-Universal

Everything, every aspect of the cosmos exhibits something like sentience, what we might call mind-like symptoms, subjective experience of some sort, thus, consciousness. 

 

2-Ontological

Consciousness is. It is a fundamental reality in its own right, not explicable by being dependent upon something else to exist, such as a warm brain with electro-chemical functions. 

 

3-Varied

There are levels or degrees of consciousness, or sentience or mentality. Thus, while human and animal consciousness, for example, might be more complex or “higher” than that of plants and rocks, those higher, more complex examples are grounded in more fundamental kinds of consciousness. Put another way, the type of mentality we know through our own experience is present, in some form, in a wide range of natural bodies. 

As a result, panspsychism posits that there is more consciousness in the universe than is commonly thought.

 

Including Rocks?

It has been convenient for me to use rocks as an example. We all know what a rock is. Most of us would not associate rocks with consciousness. But, at this point I need to get more precise than I have been about rocks. And panpsychism helps me do that.

Panpsychism makes the case that sentience or subjective experience is universal at least at a primitive, basic, fundamental level, including sub-atomic particles. However, it does not necessarily ascribe consciousness to all aggregate things, that is, to all the things those particles combine to make.  

Including rocks.

Making the distinction between the possible consciousness of rocks versus that of the particles that combine to make the rock is one level of precision. Another level of precision panpsychism suggests is in making a distinction between panexperientialism and pancognitivism. Put in a simplistic way, this is the difference between “everything experiences,” and “everything thinks.”

Proponents of panpsychism do not necessarily believe that particles themselves have complex cognitive functions such as beliefs, desires, and fears. Using the vocabulary of my model, not everything has awareness, but everything experiences, and at the particle level everything behaves as if conscious. The nature of that consciousness, and its connection potentially to higher or more complex forms of consciousness, remains mysterious.

Which leads me to introduce another form of panpsychism, cosmopsychism. The type of panpsychism I have so far discussed might be called “micro-panpyschism” because it holds that consciousness is real at the most minute, sub-atomic particle level. 

Cosmopsychism hypothesizes that the cosmos as a whole is the fundamental level of reality and that consciousness is grounded in that cosmic whole, not in the sub-atomic. All other types of consciousness, including human consciousness, derive from the larger cosmic consciousness or are expressions of it somehow. 

We could say that for cosmopsychism consciousness begins at the macro, cosmic level, and the micro levels are a result of that. Whereas for other theories of panpsychism, the “process” flows the other direction, from the micro to the macro.

Whether rooted in the micro-particle or the cosmic, so far this philosophical trek has led to a view of reality that is full of or fully connected with consciousness in some way.

And rather than leaving this as a conceptual framework, I want to receive it as an invitation. An invitation to step in and experience the interconnected, entangled reality I share with all things. To respond to that I will pause here and present a song I have shared before. Sometimes I hesitate to repeat things too many times but repetition is not a bad thing, and I know there are people for whom this is the first Episode as well. So here it is, “Elemental Spirits.”

 

Elemental Spirits 

I’m gonna go down to the earth

I’m gonna sink my feet deep in

Gonna let it bury all of me

Let it soak into my skin

I’m in the earth, and the earth is in me

Elemental spirits, elemental spirits.

 

I’m gonna step into the wind

Open wide and breathe it in

Gonna feel it wrap around me

Let it soak into my skin

I’m in the wind, and the wind is in me

Elemental spirits, elemental spirits.

 

I’m gonna go down to the water

I’m gonna walk right in

Sink down ‘til its all around me

Let it soak into my skin

I’m in the water, and the water is in me

Elemental spirits, elemental spirits.

 

I’m gonna reach out for the fire

I’m gonna stick my hands right in in

Let the heat and burn surround me

Let it soak into my skin

I’m in the fire, and the fire is in me

Elemental spirits, elemental spirits.

 

Elemental spirits, elemental spirits.

 

Before moving forward, I want to put a question on the table. 

 

Is This True?

I have explained panpsychism, but what about critiques of the theory? Here's a summary of the major criticisms:

 

Absurd

For many, it just seems that common sense tells us that it is absurd to attribute consciousness to inanimate objects. The idea that rocks might have any kind of consciousness, even a minimal level, is counterintuitive.

 

Not Testable

Some argue that since we cannot empirically verify or falsify the claim that all matter possesses consciousness, we should not embrace the theory.

In response to both of those first objections, I am not sure how all proponents of panpsychism might argue but in my view quantum physics provides plenty of evidence that the universe is in fact counter intuitive, even absurd, when we compare that with our typical common-sense notions. While panpsychism itself is not testable, it is a theory that emerged in large part due to the sort of testing and theorizing of quantum physicists. I see it as an extension of quantum physics’ way of seeing the world. 

There are two more critiques, however. Both are similar to each other in that they each criticize panpsychism based on whether it can adequately explain other mysteries related to consciousness. First,

 

The Combination Problem

This critique begins from the premise of quantum physics that even sub-atomic particles exhibit behaviors we associate with consciousness, but asks, “if they are conscious, how do these minimal forms combine to form the complex types of consciousness we experience as humans?” Next,

 

The Causation Problem

That first objection is focused on the difficulties of explaining how combinations happen. The second is related to the question of how to explain causation. The “material” explanation for consciousness is that consciousness results from the electro-chemical process of the brain. Causation is explicable in that way. But critics of panpsychism say that the theory cannot explain a non-material causation for any type of consciousness. Thus, the theory is not true.

These are important criticisms, and they raise important questions. Do they disprove the theory? There is a similar conundrum relative to theories of quantum physics. We can describe what particles do in the double slit experiment for example, but we cannot explain why. That does not mean that they do not behave the way they do. Thus, if panpsychism does not provide an adequate account for combination and causation, that does not disprove the theory. 

But it does leave us with very important questions about consciousness. For example:

• Where does consciousness come from if it is not caused by matter in some way? 
• How do micro-particles seem to combine to form more and more complex forms of consciousness? 

The questions that critics ask of panpsychism do not disprove it, but the questions panpsychism cannot answer pull us inexorably, like a tractor beam in Star Wars, to consider whether there is some form of big C Consciousness as well as small c consciousness. In other words, the conversation about rocks will lead very naturally, indeed necessarily, to questions about the divine. 

But in my own descriptive, 4-dimensional model that question is a leap to the 4th dimension. I need to look at human consciousness next. And so as tempting as it is to jump right back to religion, I will press forward.

 

Conclusion

I gave myself three guiderails:

• focus on the things we probably assume are least likely to be conscious.
• use my descriptive approach employing the concepts of “experience” and “awareness.”
• test my working conclusions about the cosmos and consciousness.

How does that working conclusion hold up, the one formed following the Episodes where I explored religion and physics?

Here it is again:

If consciousness and reality are entangled, then it follows, for me at least, that everything in the cosmos might be conscious, or that at the very least, if the things in the universe are not conscious themselves, they are at least deeply connected with consciousness in ways that affect how they behave at the level of their sub-atomic particles.  

The excursion onto the ocean of philosophy which I have undertaken in my little rowboat has not yet resulted in winds or storms or currents that would cause my boat’s course to veer away from the destination which the conclusion I brought to the journey from religion and physics. Religions and physics and philosophy, in different ways, and with different nuances, all add to what has brought me to that conclusion. 

That the cosmos is more full of consciousness than we may imagine. 

After all these attempts to give an explanation of this conclusion, I will end with a song I have shared before, that is an attempt to create a musical experience of it: “Song of Light.”

 

Song of Light

 

Light is falling into my window, light as feather in my hands

Light of moon is lace on cinders, tongues of light are woven strands

Light is falling

Light is falling

 

Light is flowing out through my window, as light as feathered wing flies from hand

Light on the moon, night sky is cinder; light from tongues like flowing strands

Light is flowing

Light is flowing

 

Light is glowing, light is my window, light is feathered bird nesting in my hand

Light is moon, and night, and cinder; light is words on tongues, glowing strands

Light is glowing

Light is glowing

 

I plan to hold onto that way of framing things, set it aside for now, and turn to the much more complicated question of human beings, human consciousness.

Until next time…