Panpsychism — An Interactive Map

Panpsychism is older than its current revival. The events below trace the position from William James's anticipation of its central problem, through the structural argument it now relies on, to the contemporary defense — and the technical challenge that decides whether the position survives.

In Russell's voice — the argument panpsychism inherits

If there is something further in the centre itself, we cannot know about it.

Bertrand Russell, An Outline of Philosophy (1927), Ch. 15

Russell himself was not a panpsychist. What panpsychism took from him was a structural argument about physics: physics characterizes its objects exhaustively in terms of relations and dispositions — mass attracts, charge repels, particles propagate — and never reaches what they are in themselves. The intrinsic nature of matter is left blank.

That blank is the philosophical opening on which contemporary panpsychism rests. If physics is silent about what matter is in itself, then matter, in itself, can be experiential without contradiction. Panpsychism takes the step Russell did not: it identifies the missing intrinsic nature with consciousness. Whether the identification holds is the argument the rest of this site maps.

Panpsychism sits at the center. Its motivation comes from above — the hard problem and the structural framework Russell provides. Its variants sit beside it. Its principal challenge — the combination problem and its sub-forms — sits below. Panprotopsychism stands off to the side as the alternative within the same framework that refuses panpsychism's central commitment.

The position Motivator Framework Variant Alternative within the framework — solid: derivation · - - dashed: critique or alternative

In Chalmers's voice — the problem the map turns on

The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience.

David Chalmers, "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness," Journal of Consciousness Studies 2:3 (1995)

Chalmers's hard problem is the question panpsychism claims to answer. Easy problems — how the brain integrates information, controls behavior, reports its own states — are tractable in principle. The hard problem is why any of this functioning should be accompanied by experience at all. Panpsychism's answer is that experience is not produced; it is there from the start.

Chalmers himself is not a panpsychist. He is the field's cartographer, mapping positions and their commitments without staking the territory for himself. Panpsychism and panprotopsychism appear in his work as live options whose viability turns on whether their respective burdens can be met. The map above adopts the structure he established in his 2013–15 papers, including the combination problem as the question that decides whether panpsychism is more than a provocation.

Panpsychism is best understood by what it refuses. Materialism, on the panpsychist view, cannot explain consciousness without quietly assuming it. Dualism multiplies entities and severs the world. Panpsychism is the third way — the position that takes both physics and experience seriously without paying either price. The trade-offs each view accepts appear below.

Materialismconsciousness reduces

Panpsychismconsciousness fundamental

Dualismconsciousness separate

What is consciousness?

A physical phenomenon, identical to or wholly constituted by brain processes, functional roles, or information integration. Subjective experience is what certain physical states are doing.

A fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. Macro-experience is composed from microphenomenal properties at the smallest scale.

A non-physical phenomenon, distinct in kind from physical processes. Mental properties or substances exist alongside physical ones and are not reducible to them.

What is fundamental?

Physical entities and their properties (mass, charge, spin, fields). Nothing mental at the ground floor.

Physical entities and the phenomenal properties that are their intrinsic nature. The mental is built into the basic furniture.

Both physical and phenomenal properties (or substances) are fundamental; neither reduces to the other.

Principal explanatory burden

Explain how subjective experience arises from non-experiential processes — the hard problem.

Explain how microphenomenal properties combine into the unified macro-experience of a subject — the combination problem.

Explain how non-physical mind interacts with physical brain without violating physics's causal closure — the interaction problem.

Principal cost

Either denies the explanandum (eliminativism) or accepts a permanent explanatory gap that critics call the hard problem.

Counterintuitive ontology (experience all the way down) and the unresolved combination question.

Ontological extravagance and the difficulty of locating mental causation in a physically closed world.

Representative figures

Daniel Dennett, Patricia Churchland, David Papineau, Frank Jackson.

Galen Strawson, Philip Goff, Hedda Hassel Mørch, Luke Roelofs; William James (sympathetic).

William Hasker, Richard Swinburne (substance dualism); E. J. Lowe, Howard Robinson, John Foster (property and substance dualism).

Key works

Consciousness Explained (Dennett, 1991); Thinking About Consciousness (Papineau, 2002).

Realistic Monism (Strawson, 2006); Consciousness and Fundamental Reality (Goff, 2017); Combining Minds (Roelofs, 2019).

The Emergent Self (Hasker, 1999); The Soul (Swinburne, 1986); A Survey of Metaphysics (Lowe, 2002).

In Goff's voice — the case for the third way

consciousness goes all the way down to the fundamental building blocks of reality.

Philip Goff, the formulation he uses across Consciousness and Fundamental Reality (2017) and Galileo's Error (2019)

Goff's argument for panpsychism is comparative. Materialism, he holds, cannot explain consciousness without quietly assuming it — every materialist account, when pressed, either redescribes experience in functional terms that miss the explanandum or stops at a gap it cannot cross. Dualism severs the world and faces the interaction problem the table above describes. Panpsychism is the third way: it takes both physics and experience seriously, and it locates experience in the only place that does not require it to appear from nowhere.

The combination problem is the cost. Goff treats it as the technical challenge his side must answer rather than as a refutation. When the bottom-up version strains, he turns to cosmopsychism — the view that the cosmos is the one fundamental subject and individual minds are derivative — as a fallback that reverses the direction of explanation. Whether either move succeeds is the open question on which the comparison above depends.

No selection

Click any event on the timeline or any node on the concept map to see context here.