What do you think?
Rate this book
Is Consciousness Everywhere?
This volume, originally a special issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, uses the recent writings of Philip Goff as a jumping-off point for discussions of panpsychism — the idea that consciousness is a fundamental and pervasive aspect of our universe that cannot be understood in other, more basic, terms. The contributors to this book explore various issues of panpsychism from the perspectives of science, philosophy, and theology. Some papers focus on further motivating and developing the panpsychist position. Others explore various challenges that the panpsychist faces. Collectively, they shed new and important light not only on panpsychism, but on the fundamental question of the place of consciousness in nature more generally.
463 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 1, 2022
19 people are currently reading
300 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 7, 2024
Philip Goff has become something of a world authority and spokesman for panpsychism, the idea that all things "have a mind or mindlike quality" [1]. Goff wrote a fine article on it for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Panpsychism has become more intriguing as more people become dissatisfied with materialism (aka physicalism) and its shaky cousin, dualism. Physicalism has failed to come up with even a theory of how matter can produce consciousness (the famous "hard problem" of David Chalmers). Physicalism can't account for how matter leads to subjectivity and values. Calling the latter two emergent properties of Darwinist evolution of matter only begs the question.
There are serious problems in panpsychism, at any rate. Do atoms have conscious awareness or only aggregates of atoms? If the latter, where do we draw the line? If a pebble has consciousness, does a rock have more? How about a mountain?
How does the "objectivity" implied by shared objects of experience fit in? If Tom and Vicky go to a museum, look at a painting, and discuss it, doesn't that prove the painting exists as something consistent outside their individual subjectivities? If so, is the painting's own consciousness "consistent" with that of the two people looking at it? In what way?
What about abstractions, ideas, numbers and other "eternal objects"? Aren't they kinds of things? If not, why not? If so, do they have consciousness too?
Goff doesn't try to give conclusive answers to such questions. He's not trying to overturn scientific methodology either. But what he would like (and I've heard him say so in podcasts) is for science to keep an open mind. That seems laudable enough. But, on the other hand, a metaphysician's primal thirst is unlikely to be quenched by the mere idea and practice of keeping an open mind.
There are serious problems in panpsychism, at any rate. Do atoms have conscious awareness or only aggregates of atoms? If the latter, where do we draw the line? If a pebble has consciousness, does a rock have more? How about a mountain?
How does the "objectivity" implied by shared objects of experience fit in? If Tom and Vicky go to a museum, look at a painting, and discuss it, doesn't that prove the painting exists as something consistent outside their individual subjectivities? If so, is the painting's own consciousness "consistent" with that of the two people looking at it? In what way?
What about abstractions, ideas, numbers and other "eternal objects"? Aren't they kinds of things? If not, why not? If so, do they have consciousness too?
Goff doesn't try to give conclusive answers to such questions. He's not trying to overturn scientific methodology either. But what he would like (and I've heard him say so in podcasts) is for science to keep an open mind. That seems laudable enough. But, on the other hand, a metaphysician's primal thirst is unlikely to be quenched by the mere idea and practice of keeping an open mind.
Displaying 1 of 1 review