1 post / 0 new
John Prytz (John Prytz)
Closer To Reality: Panpsychism

What follows are extracts from an ongoing online debate I engaged in about the alleged concept that all things, not just living things, are, to a greater or lesser extent, conscious. That concept is known as Panpsychism. The extracts have been edited so as to be as meaningful as possible as standalone paragraphs. However, some previous knowledge about the Panpsychism concept would probably be useful.

Do the Fundamental Particles Like Electrons Have Consciousness?

Since I'm not a particle, I really can't speak on behalf of particles. I don't know what it is like to be a particle. I don't know how a particle does what it does but I'm sure, given Panpsychism, that the particle knows. Now you the reader know how you operate as well as why. One example is that you operate according to logic. Presumably you operate in a logical way because you consciously operate that way. That's how you operate, or one way you operate. Only the reader knows how the reader operates. Given Panpsychism, a particle has consciousness and dictates the “how” of how it operates too. How does the particle do it? The same way the reader does his or her “how” thing.

Do the Fundamental Particles Like Electrons Have Understanding?

And just how do Panpsychism sceptics know what a particle can or cannot understand? A hot particle ought to head on over to the cold side of the room. The particle knows this, but much like a human, decides to give the "ought" the middle finger. If Panpsychism rules the roost, the particle does indeed understand the concept of "ought". When sceptics get reincarnated as a particle, then they'll be in a position to make a definitive statement. Until then, perhaps the benefit of the doubt is in order!

Do the Fundamental Particles Like Electrons Have Free Will?

If Panpsychism is true, it is perfectly explainable why massive collections of individual freely behaving particles do not apparently exhibit free behaviour. Their individual behaviours become uniform for the greater good, perhaps at times even cancel each other out. All individual humans have (for the most part) the ability to behave freely. However, in large blocks, humans just go along with the crowd, do what's expected of them, like driving to one side of the road or causing traffic congestion since we adopt the norm of a nine-to-five working day. If there's a TV show on at 9 p.m., people don't tune in at just any old hour even though they could as freely behaving individuals. So tree particles do their collective tree thing like military personnel in parade do their collective parade thing or musicians in a band collective play together and don't do their own thing by playing different tunes at the same time.

Can the Fundamental Particles Like Electrons Pick-and-Choose?

"What evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!" How does a particle do what a particle does? The Particle knows! You just gotta love Panpsychism. It really does explain an awful lot.

For example, photons do give evidence of being able to pick-and-choose; having some degree of free will as it were. If you look out through a pane of glass, you can see outside. But you also can see a reflection of the inside. If you go outside you can look inside, but you also see a reflection of the outside where you are. That's true even though you have one source of light, say the Sun. You're inside looking out. So here comes Mr. Photon outbound from the Sun and approaching your pane of glass from the outside. What does Mr. Photon do? What do Mr. Photons do? Some of those photons will reflect off of what's outside hence pass through the glass and thus you see what's outside. But some of those photons will reflect off of what's outside and then reflect off of the outside of the pane of glass back outside. You'll see those photons if you go outside and see the reflection in the outside of your pane of glass. Now, you have identical photons; one source of light; one pane of glass; and two outcomes. Somehow Mr. Photon has to make a choice; be a free agent, albeit a limited free agent. Mr. Photon can decide to pass through the glass; Mr. Photon can decide to reflect off of the glass. That's evidence of being a free agent. No other external agent is forcing any photon to do one or the other.

In the main however, Panpsychic particles (with their admittedly relatively limited scope for individuality), just like the great unwashed (humanity), tend to give up their individuality for the greater need; for the common good. Particles or humans, we tend to be team players.

Explanation 1: Panpsychism versus Determinism

Okay, according to some sceptics, the Determinists, there are deterministic theories that explain how identical photons from one light source can both go through and reflect off of a pane of glass. Now, can those skeptics actually explain, using one or more of those deterministic theories, what actually happens to explain this apparent paradox? Not everyone reading these comments will be acquainted with deterministic theories, so some detail from the sceptics explaining all would be more than welcome.

The leading contenders, as it turns out are the "hydrodynamic interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM)" and "Bohmian mechanics". Applying their understanding of the "hydrodynamic interpretation of QM" and "Bohmian mechanics" to photons both passing through and reflecting off some surface at the same time (the phenomena is far wider in scope than just light photons and glass by the way) isn't quite as deterministic as one might expect. I find their use of accompanying terms like "interpretation" to be more than somewhat iffy here.

In fact an oft cited article* on the hydrodynamic interpretation of quantum mechanics gives macro examples and then by analogy gives an interpretation of the macro to the realm of the micro, or the quantum.

Proof by analogy is not proof. Using a macro example is hardly applicable to the micro. Phrases like "is very much like", "postulating such a fluid", "this physical phenomena may be a fluid of a sort ... or it may be something else" hardly gives one confidence in a deterministic explanation. The one big flaw I find in the hydrodynamic interpretation of quantum mechanics is that I find is that the identical photons do one of just two things - reflect or pass through. The deterministic explanation uses hypothetical quantum "ripples" (that “hydrodynamic interpretation”) such that if they have interactions with photons should cause the photons to act in a totally random manner, not in an either/or manner. Alas, a random process would have the photons approaching and interacting with the glass such that photons should exit the glass, well randomly, and all over the glass. However, that doesn't happen. Photons that enter the pane of glass do not exit out the side of the glass, so that "ripple" effect isn't very "ripply" now is it?

Again, this is "proof" by analogy. I found the key word in the article oft cited by the Determinists to be "suggest". The macro phenomena is just suggestive as being also applicable to the micro. Double-slit experimental effects apply at the micro-level. The macro-level is not relevant unless the analogy is found to be exact. That's not yet the case. Most sceptics of Panpsychism admit that further research is warranted. Although the jury is still out, many yet seem to think or imply that a "guilty" verdict against Panpsychism has already been handed down based on that one article.

I've yet to read any account of the double-slit series of experiments that mentions the word "ripples" or "hydrodynamics" either for that matter. So all the Determinists are proposing is a "theory" that needs "further research" that "may" give an answer. Translated, they cannot yet give a definitive answer to why Mr. Photon seems to have enough free will to choose between either reflecting off of a pane of glass or passing through it. Until the Determinists do, Panpsychism remains a viable "theory", a viable theory that obviously also requires "further research" and that "may" give an answer to the either/or properties of fundamental particles whether dealing with a pane of glass or within the double-slit experiment.

If we exist in a deterministic world, then not only don't fundamental particles have consciousness, we don't have consciousness as in free will. Everything we are conscious of, every decision we make, is predetermined. In any event, there is some experimental evidence for Panpsychism, or at least an interpretation that Panpsychism exists. There's no hardcore evidence for example, the supernatural. I can see light both being reflected off of and passing through a pane of glass. I can't see, hear, touch, etc. any hypothetical Maximally Greatest Being (call Him God if you will) or otherwise uncover any actual evidence for Him. If I could I wouldn't be wasting my time here. There would be little point, just like there is little point in wasting my time trying to convince people that gravity exists. People already know that.

Now, back to the real issue at hand which is how many sceptics continuously confuse the word evidence with proof. You'll note that I never claimed that these photon effects were proof of Panpsychism, but they are evidence for Panpsychism. That there might be alternative evidence for other explanations of these photon effects is not something I dispute. I just have to repeat an earlier comment above that the jury is still out on the issue.

In conclusion, no one has ever said that any alternative explanation, like determinism, to Panpsychism has been "absolutely proven to be right". Thank you. No further questions.

Explanation 2: Panpsychism and the Simulation Hypothesis

For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the Simulation Hypothesis, it’s just the concept that we don’t exist as a really real reality but only as virtual reality, much like the entities in our video games. In other words, we and the landscape we inhabit, are just programmed software.

I have to agree with most reasonable people that Panpsychism is ridiculous, but there must be something in the concept for some people to adopt it as a working hypothesis. My answer, Panpsychism is an illusion generated by computer software. Panpsychism is one of those software routines part and parcel of the Simulation Hypothesis.

So, I'd be inclined to agree with most people that this world is not Panpsychic but there are just a few too many instances where particles seem to "know" things, the delayed double-slit experiment being a case in point. I'm keeping an open mind, but as I suggested above, if we are in some instances a Panpsychic world, well I'll put that down to a Supreme Programmer, not a Maximally Greatest Being (see below).

Explanation 3: Panpsychism and God

Regarding Panpsychism, surely the concept of a Maximally Greatest Being (i.e. – God) could create photons that have the property of awareness, free will, and decision making abilities all built in as a package deal, or are true believers putting Him in a straitjacket again? Of course if there is no Maximally Greatest Being that makes the whole scenario moot.

Panpsychism and Rational Logic

However, I find it rather amazing that Panpsychism is "ridiculous" in the view of most true believers, yet they totally adopt the supernatural given that a Maximally Greatest Being (a more generic term for God) is alleged to be a supernatural entity. Oh well, another case of different strokes for different folks.

As for belief in a supernatural being (or beings), if billions of people believe in a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. Reality is not determined by what people want to believe. The cosmos might be infinite - as I believe. The cosmos might be finite - as others believe. The cosmos is however the way it is and doesn't care what others or I believe. Many adopt and believe in the concept of the Maximally Greatest Being’s existence. In contrast, I believe that a Maximally Greatest Being does not exist. Arguing the point, while great fun and intellectually an interesting exercise, is ultimately irrelevant.

*Wolchover, Natalie; “Fluid tests hint at concrete quantum reality”; Quanta Magazine, (www.quantamagazine.org) 24 June 2014 - (reprinted by) www.wired.com as “Have we been interpreting quantum mechanics wrong this whole time?” 30 June 2014.

Further Reading:
Clarke, D.S. (Editor); Panpsychism: Past and Recent Selected Readings; State University of New York Press, Albany, New York; 2004: