We turn now to an examination of the arguments that have been raised against panpsychism. Skrbina lists six such arguments:26
(12) Inconclusive Analogy—The purported analogical basis between humans and other objects is groundless.
(13) Not Testable—There are no “new facts' or empirical basis on which to evaluate the panpsychist claim. Also known as the No Signs objection. This includes the assumption that non-verifiable theories are invalid in some fundamental sense.
(14) Physical Emergence—Emergence is in fact possible because we see it in other realms of the physical world; mind is not ontologically unique; hence, emergence of mind is conceivable.
(15) Combination Problem—Sub-minds, such as those of atoms, cannot be conceived to combine or sum into complex, unified minds such as humans have. Hence, panpsychism is not an adequate account of mind.
(16) Implausibility—Panpsychism is so implausible and counter-intuitive that it cannot be true. Also known as the reductio ad absurdum objection.
(17) Eternal Mystery—The mind-body problem is unsolvable in principle, and hence panpsychism, which purports to offer a solution, must be false.
I have already provided support for (12) in conjunction with my response to (1) (Indwelling Powers), (2) (Continuity), (4) (Design), and (8) (Dynamic Sensitivity) and will not rehearse those point here. Suffice it to say here that I agree with (12). And I have provided grounds for rejecting (17) in my treatment of (11) (Last Man Standing), so I set it aside as well. I shall address (14) (which is the other side of (5) (Non-Emergence)) and (7a) (consciousness cannot evolve from dead matter naturalistically described) below. That leaves (13), (15) and (16).
If (13) is understood as an expression of some sort of empiricism or scientism (e.g. verificationism) according to which ontology must be done within these epistemic constraints, then (13) if far less plausible today than thirty years ago. In that time, we have witnessed a remarkable revival in metaphysics, and philosophers seldom labor any longer within these constraints. Moreover, in chapter eight I shall argue for the Principles of Authority and Autonomy, roughly, the claims that in important cases, the claims of philosophy are authoritative with respect to or simply independent of the claims of science or those of more extreme versions of empiricism.
On the other hand, if we evaluate panpsychist claims about electrons, atoms, rocks, and other particulars at the other end of the scale of analogy from humans, I must confess that it is hard to see what sorts of evidence could be given that would justify panpsychist assertions over against materialistic ones. In making this claim, I take it that (13) limits the sort of evidence relevant to its assessment to those of the behavior, activity, forces of attraction/repulsion, combinatorial activities, requirements for moving or being at rest, and so on. The evidence from other arguments for panpsychism, e.g. Non-Emergence, is not relevant. Under these limitations, we face a sort of Turing Test problem for these sorts of entities. So (13) seems to me to carry some force.
(16) is the assertion that panpsychism is so implausible and counterintuitive that it cannot be true. Now I grant that such judgments can be influenced by factors in the sociology of knowledge. When this occurs, it does blunt the normative epistemic force of appeals to plausibility judgments. But I do not think this acknowledgment captures why I and, I suspect, many others agree with (16). For one thing, I think it is so obvious that at least phenomenal consciousness is not physical, and that mind cannot emerge from naturalistically described matter according to the processes that constitute the naturalist Grand Story (see chapter one), that arguments (5) and (7a) provide strong grounds for rejecting strong naturalism.
But for reasons already given, I do not believe there are adequate arguments to support panpsychism, and as I will note below, before the attempt to explain the origin of consciousness, the prior probability of classic theism vs. panpsychism is so superior, that there is a severe burden of proof on the latter. And relative to this disadvantage for panpsychism, it seems bizarre, incredible and ontologically bloated to claim, for example, that when atoms join to form molecules, or various parts join to form crystals, that this somehow involves consciously creating a protective, guarding environment for the relevant sub-systems.
We are left with (15)—the Combination Problem and the unity of the self for (at least some) macro-objects. I take this to be the Achilles’ heel of panpsychism. There are different ways of stating the problem. For example, if each particle of matter has its own unified point of view, how do they combine to form the same sort of unity when they interact to form larger wholes, a unity that appears to be unanalyzable and primitive? How do low-order experiences of ultimate atomic simples combine to form a single, unified field of consciousness or a unified self in larger wholes? Some panpsychists hold that all composed objects above the level of atomic simples have their own unified consciousness while others distinguish mere mereological aggregates without such a unity from ‘‘true individuals’’ that have it. Those who make such a distinction face two additional problems: How does one characterize the difference between the two? How could ‘‘true individuals’’ arise from processes that are combinatorial?
As far as I can tell, panpsychists fall into two groups with respect to ‘‘true individuals’’ that genuinely have a unified point of view or even a unified self. First, there are those who reject such individuals and opt for a sort of pseudo-unity for humans and other macro-objects. For example, according to Skrbina, Charles Strong held that mind-stuff with innumerable feelings fuses to create higher-level psychological states that lack the ability to differentiate many feelings. Thus, the genuine unity of the higher state is not real; it is an illusion due to the inability to perceive the multiplicity of individual experiences. It is far from clear what it is that has this illusion, but in any case, that is the view. Orson Pratt held that the unity of consciousness, free will and so forth of humans is really the collective agreement of one’s atomic simples to act or move into the same sentient state simultaneously. Somehow, each simple interacts and communicates with all the others and, as a result, change in unison.27
Others believe in such individuals with ‘‘genuine unity’’ and have solved the unification problem in a number of ways:
(a) somehow a dominant monad arises;
(b) such unity obtains when a certain compactness and intensity of attraction is reached;
(c) mind-stuff with actual or potential mentality just fuses in the right circumstances;
(d) the latent soul/spiritual substance in each atomic simple unite to become a fully animated unity when absorbed into the body of an animal or plant;
(e) the quantum principle of superposition.
Interestingly, Skrbina points out that William Seager—one of the today’s leading panpsychists—takes the Combination Problem to be a real ‘‘show-stopper’’ for panpsychism, but Seager and Skrbina hold that superposition and related quantum notions is the way forward towards a solution.28
It is hard to know how to respond to these “solutions.’’ But as a start, it is important to note that the Combination Problem has been around since Democritus, it is a very serious metaphysical conundrum, and Aristotle’s distinction between a metaphysical treatment of mere aggregates and genuine substances may well be the best sort of solution we have to the problem. Unfortunately, such a solution entails that if one is limited to combinatorial processes governing atomic simples (whether physical or psycho-physical), various systems up the hierarchy will not exhibit genuine substantial unity.
The problem is in trying to conceive just how it could be that the mere spatial arrangement of parts to form a different spatial ordering could be sufficient to generate a new kind of primitive unity. This difficulty seems almost self-evident to me and I do not know how to argue for it in terms that are more basic. However, the longevity of the Combination Problem bears witness to the fact that for centuries, many thinkers have acknowledged the severity of this issue and the correctness of this conceptual insight.
If this is correct, then a panpsychist ought to opt for a ‘‘pseudo-unity’’ position. Unfortunately, it is difficult to take the unity of consciousness or the self to be unreal. In fact, it is hard to see how anything could be more epistemically basic than our knowledge of such unity. And as I said above, it is difficult to see how the illusion of unity could arise? Surely, the individual members of one’s combinatorial group do not suffer such delusion, and if there just is no unified consciousness or self, it is hard to see what has the illusion.
Alternatively, if one opts for “true individuals,' then, curiously, the panpsy-chist account of their coming-to-be is in bed with the mechanistic view of the ontology and generation of purely physical macro-wholes: both resort to combinatorial solutions, external relational connections, and atomic parts that have (actually or potentially) the stuff characteristic of the whole. Again, the problem here is that we clearly understand the combinatorial story, and all it can do is provide an account of ‘‘the generation of conjunction from disjunction,” that is, the appearance of mereological aggregates without a primitive, sui generis unity characteristic of this panpsychist option. Moreover, the alleged panpsychist “accounts” listed above are either question-begging assertions or misleading proposals.
In my view, (a)-(d) above are question-begging and amount to little more than hand-waving magic (without a Magician!). The superposition alternative that is alleged to be so promising is actually misleading. In its basic form, the quantum principle of superposition is just the claim that when waves meet their amplitudes add. Thus, two waves “combine” to form one wave in the mere sense that at every point the new wave’s amplitude is the sum of those of the two waves. Superposition is merely additive summation, precisely the sort of combination that forms mer-eological aggregates. This not the sort of unification needed to generate a ‘‘true individual’’ and it is misleading to claim otherwise.
Before I leave this topic, I should say that the Combination Problem is not limited to the category of individual. Just as problems of causal interaction (that allegedly arise for Cartesian minds and bodies) are equally problematic for the emergence of sui generis properties, so combinatorial difficulties surface with emergent properties. There is a two-fold source of trouble for sui generis emergent properties: they are non-structural, simple and unique (e.g. normative properties, secondary qualities, consciousness); their origin must be explained by purely natural, combinatorial processes without the aid of Divine action, processes that are suitable only for structural properties.
There are three major views of the generation of emergent properties relevant to our discussion. First, micro-base entities and the laws governing their interaction lack the actuality of or potentiality for the emergent property; nevertheless, under the right circumstances the emergent property just appears. Second, each micro-particular with its micro-properties has the potentiality for the emergent property and under the right combinatorial circumstances, they jointly bring about the exemplification of the emergent property. Third, each micro-particular with its micro-properties is always actually striving, as it were, to bring about the exemplification of the emergent property, but their joint activity becomes effective only under the right combinatorial circumstances.
I have argued already that if one is going to operate within the constraints of a legitimate and plausible version of naturalism, the first alternative must be adopted if one is going to quantify over emergent properties. But option one faces the ‘‘getting-something-from-nothing’’ problem. Limiting our discussion to emergent mental properties, the problem may be put this way: Let P’s and M’s stand for purely physical and mental properties, respectively. Given that micro-particulars, micro-properties, micro-processes and micro-laws are characterized by and only by P’s, effects of such and only such processes will also be characterized by and only by P’s. If some entity appears that must be characterized by one or more of the M’s, then this entity is not an effect solely of the micro-particulars, micro-properties, micro-processes and micro-laws characterized by and only by P’s.
Solutions two and three are attempts to avoid this difficulty. But they face two objections. First, they are no longer naturalist positions. I have argued for this claim repeatedly, and at the close of this chapter I will reinforce this assertion by showing that panpsychism is not a version of naturalism. Second, they still face the Combination Problem, but now in the category of property. Recall that in chapter four, according to Timothy O’Connor, if an emergent property is depicted as contingently linked to the base properties causing it to emerge, then apart from an appeal to God’s contingent choice that things be so and to God’s stable intention that they continue to be so, there will be no explanation for the link itself or its constancy.
I agree with O’Connor, but I think a similar point applies to the Combination Problem: If a sui generis emergent property or a new “true individual’’ is acknowledged and its appearance is correlated with a certain set of circumstances formed by combinatorial processes acting on myriads and myriads of subvenient entities, then apart from an appeal to God’s contingent choice that things be so and to God’s stable intention that they continue to be so, there will be no explanation—naturalistic, panpsychist, or otherwise—for its appearance or constancy.
So far I have contended that the combined weight of the arguments for panpsychism actually provide more support for classic theism and that there are good arguments against panpsychism that justify rejecting it if classic theism is the only rival in view. Before we leave Skrbina’s presentation of panpsychism, I want to make three concluding points. First, the enduring presence of panpsychism provides evidence that there is a legitimate philosophical problem for which it is a plausible solution. That problem is captured by (5), (7a) and (14) all of which center on the problem of emergent consciousness given strong naturalism. This entire book is an attempt to show that consciousness cannot emerge from matter and material processes as they are depicted by strong naturalism. Thus, the presence of, say, human consciousness supports both classic theism and panpsychism and provides a defeater for strong naturalism. Second, as I just noted above, if we limit ourselves to the arguments for and against panpsychism, finite consciousness provides more evidence for classic theism than for panpsychism. Finally, even if the arguments regarding consciousness were equally supportive of classic theism and panpsychism, I believe that all things considered, there is more evidence for the former than for the latter.
It is beyond the scope of this book to provide anything even approximating a defense of this last assertion. I have already provided sources for such a defense.29 Here I make two observations. For one thing, the phenomena employed in arguments for the theistic God go far beyond those in support of panpsychism, e.g. the origin and contingency of the cosmos, design, various aspects of the moral life, religious experience, miracles, and so forth. Panpsychism is primarily an attempt to explain consciousness and classic theism does this and much more. Moreover, when one ventures beyond this to include the phenomena of design, dynamic sensitivity, indwelling powers, and so forth, I have argued that classic theism is superior in these areas.
Secondly, I think classic theism is vastly superior to panpsychism as the different candidates for the ultimate stopping place, the system’s brute fact. If I understand panpsychism correctly, the psycho-physical cosmos is the system’s brute fact. But for three reasons, this appears to be a contingent brute fact. For one thing, based on a) the most plausible interpretation of the Big Bang; b) the second law of thermodynamics applied to the cosmos; c) arguments for the impossibility of traversing an actually infinite series of events; and d) arguments for the impossibility of an actually infinite set of members such as temporal events that are finite and contingent; it follows that the cosmos came into existence, and whatever comes into existence is contingent.30
Moreover, the actual world is clearly only one of many possible worlds. Worlds that are minimal physical duplicates of our world are a small range of all possible worlds. For example, compared to the necessary laws of logic, mathematics, and general ontology, physical laws are contingent, indeed.
Finally, the existence of finite consciousness in the cosmos along with its specific connection to particular physical entities seems contingent (e.g. in light of zombie worlds, inverted qualia worlds, modal arguments from the possibility of disembodied existence, arguments from the insufficiency of physical conditions to determine alternative possibilities that follow from the exercise or refraining from the exercise of agent causal power).
Setting aside issues surrounding the precise formulation and defense of the Principle(s) of Sufficient Reason, it just seems to be a bad idea to have a contingent brute fact. It also is a problem in light of the transitivity of per se regresses as we saw in chapter five. There is one exception to this rule, and that is the actions of a libertarian agent. Theism provides a brilliant solution to the need for a necessary being as the appropriate brute fact and the need for a contingent explanation for the three aspects of contingency cited above. The God of classic theism is (at least) a de re necessary being, and his acts of bringing the cosmos into being, sustaining it, and causing the existence of finite consciousness along with the precise mental/physical correlations that obtain in the cosmos are all libertarian acts. Thus, they provide a contingent explanation for these contingent facts. I believe that in this way, classic theism provides a better account of bruteness than does panpsychism.
I think that the days of strict physicalism are drawing to a close. For sixty years or so, we have been through several epicycles of strong naturalism— behaviorism, type identity physicalism, anomalous monism (construed anti-realistically), eliminative materialism, a cottage industry of versions of functionalism (with only physical realizers), and so on. These have all failed and more and more philosophers are embracing (at least emergent) property dualism for (at least) phenomenal consciousness.
In my view, the enduring appeal of panpsychism and of AC bears witness to the fact that consciousness is real, irreducibly mental, and completely incapable of explanation within a naturalist framework. Thus, the move to property dualism represents the falsification of naturalism and not merely an appropriate revision of it. Since naturalists claim superiority for their worldview on the grounds of its comportment with empirical data, the movement towards property dualism is an inappropriate ad hoc adjustment of naturalism that heads in the direction of unfalsifiability. This is to shift towards lessening naturalism’s empirical content and, thus, towards weakening its claim to hegemony.
If a naturalist posits mental properties or potentialities as basic, then in light of the background issues discussed in chapters one and two, he has opted for a version of panpsychism and abandoned naturalism. Historically speaking, whether weak or strong, panpsychism has always been taken as a rival to a positive form of naturalism. Positive naturalism is not content with the mere negative denial of God’s existence. It also seeks to provide a positive vision of what is real and how things came to be. Such a form of naturalism has always been combinatorial, mechanistic, and phy-sicalistic. Thus, Skrbina notes that ‘‘throughout history, panpsychism has, at almost every point, served as an antipode’’ to a naturalistic, mechanistic view of reality.31
For example, even though the earliest atomists—Democritus and Leu-cippus—may have retained the notion of a soul-like entity for spherical atoms (being soul-like, spherical atoms were self-movers and capable of explaining motion itself), by carefully distinguishing spherical from other atoms and describing the latter in purely mechanistic terms, they made very clear the atomistic, dead, mechanistic nature of purely physical atoms. During the rise of the mechanical philosophy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, whether it was inert corpuscularianism, dynamic cor-puscularianism, or the point-particles of Boscovich, strong naturalists were careful to distinguish their views of matter from those of the panpsychists.
Thus, throughout history, positive naturalism and panpsychism have been rivals, and advocates of the former went to great lengths to characterize physical particles and forces in ways that avoided the slightest hint of panpsychism. Regarding physical particles, they have been characterized as dead, insensitive, lifeless, inert (not-self movers) stuff exhaustively describ-able in third-person language, and subject to laws expressed in mathematical form. Completely absent is any hint of mental properties or potentialities. Regarding forces, they have been characterized to avoid non-metaphorical mental description, irreducible entelechies, substantial forms, and causal powers beyond passive liabilities, specifically, active agent-causal power. Thus, these forces are ‘‘blind,’’ efficiently causal and law-like. When we talk in terms of chemical affinity, or forces of attraction and repulsion, we do not speak literally. Historically, one of the intellectual motivating factors for avoiding action at a distance was to preserve the purely physical nature of material forces.
Finally, since the earliest days of panpsychism, there has been an intellectual tendency towards postulating either a world-soul or some version of finite theism. This tendency is hard to avoid. Once you quantify over mental potentialities or actual properties, as long as you set aside the Combination Problem, there is no a priori way to draw a line as to where the emergence of new individuals must stop. And given a number of factors, e.g. religious experience, some form of emergent deity is quite plausible. Most naturalists seem unaware of the fact that if one allows the camel’s nose under the tent in the form of (at least) basic mental potentialities that ground emergent mental properties, it is hard to stop the inevitable slide toward emergent theism. It seems, then, that solving the problem of emergence by opting for basic mental potentialities amounts to a rejecting of naturalism and not an appropriate adjustment to it.