Consciousness / Panpsychism
What If the Universe Never Switched the Lights Off?
The most unsettling thing about panpsychism isn't that it might be wrong — it's that it might be the most coherent theory of mind we have.
The Idea
Here is the problem that keeps philosophers up at night: we have no satisfying explanation for why there is subjective experience at all. You can map every neuron, trace every chemical signal, describe every oscillating brainwave — and you will still have said nothing about why any of that physical activity feels like something from the inside. Philosopher David Chalmers called this the 'hard problem of consciousness,' and it remains genuinely unsolved. Panpsychism is one of the oldest and currently most debated responses to it. The proposal, in its simplest form, is that experience — or something like it — is not a property that evolution invented in nervous systems, but a fundamental feature of reality itself. Not that rocks have rich inner lives, but that even the most elementary constituents of matter possess some infinitesimally simple form of interiority. Consciousness, on this view, doesn't emerge mysteriously from non-conscious stuff; it was always there, compounding in complexity as matter organised itself. This is not mysticism — it's a serious metaphysical position held by philosophers like Philip Goff and Galen Strawson and taken seriously in neuroscience circles, partly because the leading rival theory (that consciousness is simply what certain information-processing systems do) struggles just as badly to explain the felt quality of experience. Panpsychism doesn't solve everything, but it reframes the mystery: instead of asking how matter produces mind, we ask how simple experience combines into the richly unified thing you are having right now.
In the World
In 2019, philosopher Philip Goff published 'Galileo's Error,' arguing that the father of modern science made a fateful choice: to mathematise the physical world, he had to strip it of all qualities — colour, smell, taste — and leave only quantities. Those qualities didn't disappear; they got relocated into the minds of observers. Goff's point is that this move, so productive for physics, quietly created the mind-body problem we've been stuck with ever since. If consciousness was expelled from nature at the birth of science, no wonder we can't find it when we go looking. Goff draws on the work of Arthur Eddington — the British astronomer who in 1927 pointed out something quietly radical: physics describes the structure of reality beautifully, but says nothing about its intrinsic nature. We know mass bends spacetime, but we don't know what mass is, in itself. Eddington's suggestion — that the intrinsic nature of matter might be experiential — sat mostly ignored for decades. Goff retrieved it and gave it rigorous contemporary form. What makes this more than academic is the Integrated Information Theory developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, which mathematically formalises how much 'integrated information' a system contains — a measure it calls phi. On this account, any system with a phi greater than zero has some degree of experience. That includes, potentially, a great deal more than human brains. Scientists at the Allen Institute for Brain Science have taken the theory seriously enough to run experiments designed to test it — a remarkable moment where panpsychism crossed from philosophy into empirical research.
Why It Matters
You don't need to endorse panpsychism to let it do something useful to your thinking. What it offers is a shift in default assumption — away from the idea that consciousness is a late, local accident in an otherwise inert universe, toward the possibility that experience is woven into the fabric of things. That reframing has a quiet but real effect on how you might relate to the world. It makes the question 'what is it like to be this?' feel less absurd when directed at things beyond humans and animals. It challenges the sharp line between self and world that we usually take for granted. And on a Monday morning — when consciousness is something you're mostly just trying to get enough of — there is something genuinely steadying about the idea that your awareness isn't an anomaly in a dead universe, struggling to feel at home. It might be the universe becoming briefly, locally aware of itself. Not a ghost in a machine. More like a wave discovering it's the ocean.
A Question to Ponder
If the hard problem of consciousness has no solution within current science, does that suggest the problem is unsolvable — or that science is missing something fundamental about the nature of reality?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable