Post by @michaelgemar@cosocial.ca

2026-04-14 08:26 UTC

@tchambers@indieweb.social @dyckron@cosocial.ca Panpsychism seems like trying to explain how water is wet by postulating that each H2O molecule possesses some “protowetness”, or traffic jams by presuming that tires and windshields and bumpers all independently have a bit of “jamness” that somehow complexly interacts to produce freeway gridlock.

Replies (2)

@tchambers@indieweb.social 2026-04-14 12:32

@michaelgemar@cosocial.ca @dyckron@cosocial.ca I'd say the 'wetness' analogy fails because wetness is structural: it’s just how atoms move. Consciousness is qualitative; it’s the 'view from within.' You can’t derive a 'feeling' from an 'arrangement' without some sort of a bridge. Panpsychists say: by making experience fundamental, like gravity they avoid the 'miracle' of subjectivity emerging from dead matter.

Open ##1146850
@tchambers@indieweb.social 2026-04-14 12:37

@michaelgemar@cosocial.ca @dyckron@cosocial.ca As to your point on "how" it works: Integrated Information Theory (IIT) then suggests the 'how,' explaining how these base properties scale and unify into the self-awareness we experience. https://arxiv.org/html/2604.11482v1 BTW i am not a panpsychist, or a materialist on consciousness I'm undecided -- but am curious about both panpsychism and IIT as interesting...and I agree that the hard problem of consiousness is a fundamental problem.

Open ##1146866