Arguments against panpsychism
This was initially published
as an answer in Quora, but it does not seem to appear in the
answers list there, which is why I copied it here.
The ideas and motivations for panpsychism seem to me very poor
and unclear. In guise of clarification I will express them in some
terms which may appear caricatural; but I am yet to see a
clarification that properly rules out the criticism so expressed.
Panpsychism seems to come as a desperate attempt to escape the
strict physicalism of science. As if strict physicalism was the
real lesson of science and the search for an alternative was so
desperate. Far from this, I am familiar with quantum physics and
see cosmic idealism as a perfect fit to it. Other physicists also
recognize the discrepancy between the rumor of physicalism of
science and the actual lessons of modern physics, whose amazing
success together with its refusal to describe any definite
"physical reality", would rather beg to question this rumor:
https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/eddington.2008.essay.pdf
Confessions of a Theoretical Physicist
Proponents of panpsychism do not seem to be aware of that. Their
ideas and motivation seem to go the following path:
(1) Science shows reality is made of classical particles described
by the old 19th century physics.
(2) In particular, consciousness comes as independent individuals,
each of whom emerges from biology.
(3) But we also have the intuition that consciousness is the
foundation of reality.
(4) As many scientists seem to not like (3), it must be the because
it seems to conflict with (1) and (2) which they are so much
attached to, and they may have good reasons for it.
(5) Therefore the only way to save (3) is to declare it coherent
with (1) and (2) by claiming that classical particles and conscious
individuals are one and the same.
One trouble here, is that just forcefully pretending that some given
claims should be coherent with each other, and that some given very
differently looking concepts should be identical, does not suffice
to actually make them so.
Rather than physicalism, a better condition of scientific
credibility would be conceptual clarity and coherence. And
especially, coherence with the actual content of modern physics,
that is, quantum theory. This requires the effort of actually
studying it, an effort which seems lacking among proponents of
panpsychism, when they say, "every individual object is conscious".
Indeed, if only they cared to actually study quantum field theory,
they would have noticed that modern science actually refutes the
existence of any individual objects at a fundamental level:
In the fundamental terms of physics, the structure of matter
doesn't anyhow look like one admitting a division into individual
objects.
Moreover, any view of particles of the same kind as individuals in
the sense of conceivability of a difference (even a hidden one)
between switching two of them and keeping them at their respective
places, is flatly refuted. In other words, the only possible way
to save the philosophers "principle of identity of
indiscernibles", "no two distinct things exactly resemble each
other", in the case of two electrons (for example) - and actually
the way to make it true - is to say that "two electrons" (as
phrased in the familiar way) are NOT and cannot be two distinct
things. All there is instead, is a single electronic quantum field
pervading the universe. There is no conceivable alternative to
this conclusion except by staying blissfully ignorant of quantum
field theory.
Therefore, there is no sense claiming to identify conscious
individuals to a presumed concept of individual material objects
which is actually refuted by science.
Overdetermination fails : the same thing cannot be given two
mutually incompatible definitions. The same thing cannot at the same
time be completely described and determined by mathematical laws,
and be full of qualia and free will that escapes mathematization.
Also, if every "individual particle" (an ill-defined concept) was
conscious, since light can be analyzed as made of photons, then we'd
have to recognize every photon as a conscious individual. This would
go crazy in the case of radio waves, which "contain" too many
photons (and a very ill-defined number of these). And why not say
the same about phonons (the particles of sound) ? Yet any idea of a
fundamental distinction between such cases would go against the
lessons of modern physics explained in On the Plurality of
Quantum Theories: Quantum theory as a framework, and its
implications for the quantum measurement problem.
Now quantum physics is actually famous for specifying the true place
of consciousness with respect to physical stuff, that is, its role
of "wavefunction collapse", actualizing one measurement outcome
among possibilities. Once this lesson is accepted, premise (2)
falls, and cosmic idealism appears as a much better fit.
More explanations along these lines in my video: Why science and
spirituality seem to diverge
To expand on the point mentioned in that video : the terrible idea
by Goff (among others) to endorse Integrated Information Theory as
if it could be a source of scientific respectability. It already
turns out to be seriously
questioned.
More
discussion.
Arguments by other authors
Why
Panpsychism Is Probably Wrong
Against
Panpsychism
An exceptionally (though still insufficiently) serious but desperate
attempt to link panpsychism with modern physics: The
Silence of Physics by Barry Dainton - commented
here