I just watched some videos on panpsychism. Since I affirm a divine idealism, I think panpsychism is a step in the right direction. However, I think the focus of this approach is too narrow. By focus, I mean, to use a photographic metaphor, what is in the frame of interest and concern? There is a tendency towards reductionism in current scientific and philosophical investigations. So, the “frame” is narrowed down to what might be considered a manageable level. This can make things easier to deal with but it can also end up being problematic.
I’ve mentioned this before with regard to religious sentiment on the matter of emphasis. If a particular issue is focused on without paying due regard to other issues, then the resulting “solutions” run the risk of being discarded or in need of major modification when confronted with other big-picture problems. The thing about a systematic approach is that everything needs to be taken into account and fit together coherently and reasonably. If certain issues are ignored, they will, more than likely, come back to bite.
So, what’s wrong with the panpsychist approach? First of all, it has such a laser focus on consciousness. The thinking might go something like this. Consciousness is such a real problem for the current materialist paradigm so let’s make that fundamental — it’s all consciousness. How this would work in the grand scheme of things isn’t talked about, as far as I’ve seen. If the issue is subjective experience (phenomenal consciousness) then how does experience fit into the complex causal network that we see? How do experiences interact? Are there some additional properties at work? If so then experiences aren’t fundamental. I think what we’re seeing here is an attempt to solve a problem without including the broader explanatory picture. The focus is too narrow.
The other problem with this near-sightedness is that is doesn’t take into consideration existential issues. Now, many of today’s philosophers may shy away from these issues because it’s not fashionable to talk about deep metaphysics. So they ignore this and just “talk among themselves” in their cloister or avoid these issues in public discussions. The problem with this is that it eventually comes out. I saw a Zoom discussion on panpsychism with prominent philosophers where a viewer asked about the practical implications of the view. That question was totally ignored. Broadening the focus presents major issues to deal with.
So, what existential issues am I talking about? Here are some:
- Meaning and purpose
- The problem of evil
- Free will
If a philosophy doesn’t address these, then who personally cares? It would be just some intellectual tempest in a teapot, signifying nothing.
Most people probably can’t assess very well the technical details of a philosophical discussion. They are not educated or trained for that. They want to know if a particular system seems right (more in an intuitive sense) and how it affects their worldview and way of thinking and living. If philosophy is just some intellectual exercise without real-world implications, then why bother? I think these explorations can be but they must broaden their focus just as it did in past centuries.
So, what is the alternative to this near-sightedness? Obviously, from this site, I think a divine idealism is a viable option that addresses both the problem of consciousness and the existential issues I mentioned. In a divine idealism, where everything is in the divine mind, consciousness seems to fit in seamlessly. So, what do we know about mind? We know that minds are complex with both conscious and unconscious processes going on. There is a lot happening with many interactions. There is intent, choices, morality, meaning and purpose. The full gamut of existential issues are in play within the mind. If there is a divine mind as the source of all this then our minds are part of that mind and have a share, within limits, of the Divine Mind. Of course, even with that model, much must be explored but I think, at least it has a broad enough focus to be meaningful.