A Framework for Evolution and Consciousness: Panpsychism Without Tears?

Giving an account of the relation between evolution and consciousness is painted as posing a dilemma between panpsychism, with minimal consciousness in every grain of matter, and radical emergence, with consciousness appearing as from nowhere in living structures. Panpsychism has been seen as suffering from a combination problem and radical emergence as unjustified in physics. The underpinning of physics now lies in field theory, which may provide a way out on both sides. Only, and always, in a field theory account do influences at different points in space-time combine in the same indivisible event. Radical emergence is also inherent to field theory. Moreover, by providing rich patterns of influence involving both discrete identities and quantitative values, field theory might provide a basis for sensed propositional meaning with subjects and predicates. Ordered condensed matter within living tissue may support unusual emergent dynamic units uniquely suited to building representations of the world with sensed meaning. The evolution of consciousness may then be seen as a tractable biological problem centred on increasingly sophisticated ways for external world dynamics to be mirrored by internal representations with semantic content, based in field relations within condensed matter with genetically encoded complex order.

Against Phenomenal Bonding

Panpsychism, the view that phenomenal consciousness is possessed by all fundamental physical entities, faces an important challenge in the form of the combination problem: how do experiences of microphysical entities combine or give rise to the experiences of macrophysical entities such as human beings? An especially troubling aspect of the combination problem is the subject-summing argument, according to which the combination of subjects is not possible. In response to this argument, Goff (2016) and Miller (2017) have proposed the phenomenal bonding relation, using which they seek to explain the composition of subjects. In this paper, I discuss the merits of the phenomenal bonding solution and argue that it fails to respond satisfactorily to the subject-summing argument.

A Compositional Model of Consciousness Based on Consciousness-Only

Scientific studies of consciousness rely on objects whose existence is assumed to be independent of any consciousness. On the contrary, we assume consciousness to be fundamental, and that one of the main features of consciousness is characterized as being other-dependent. We set up a framework which naturally subsumes this feature by defining a compact closed category where morphisms represent conscious processes. These morphisms are a composition of a set of generators, each being specified by their relations with other generators, and therefore co-dependent. The framework is general enough and fits well into a compositional model of consciousness. Interestingly, we also show how our proposal may become a step towards avoiding the hard problem of consciousness, and thereby address the combination problem of conscious experiences.

Panqualityism as the Version of Russellian Monism

Panqualityism is based on the assumption that the intrinsic nature of all matter has something like phenomenal unexperienced qualities. Consciousness is formed by the awareness of some of these qualities. The type of panqualityism offered by the main proponent of this view today, S. Coleman, is the one considered in this article. His panqualityism is described as a version of Russellian monism, panpsychism or panprotopsychism, neutral monism as well as physicalism. As it is shown, panqualityism is close to all the above-mentioned views because of the unknowability of intrinsic properties of matter in Russellian monism, the view on which Coleman's panqualityism is based. However, the closest version of interpretation appears to be panprotopsychism, which also shows disadvan­tages of this theory. Coleman's panqualityism draws on the impossibility of the subject’s summing claim, but his concept of subject raises concerns, because of its vagueness. It is noted that the definition of the status of a subject to solve the combination problem is closely connected with approaches used to solve the personal identity problem and can be related to it.

Reflections of a Natural Scientist on Panpsychism

Panpsychism shares many intuitions with integrated information theory (IIT), in particular that consciousness is an intrinsic fundamental property of reality, is graded, and can be found in small amounts in simple physical systems. Unlike panpsychism, however, IIT clearly articulates which systems are conscious and which ones are not (resolving panpsychism's combination problem) and why consciousness can be adaptive. The systemic weakness of panpsychism, or any other -ism, is that they fail to offer a protracted conceptual, let alone empirical, research programme that yields novel insights or proposes new experiments. Without those, progress on the mindâ–“body problem will not occur.

A Solution to the Combination Problem and the Future of Panpsychism

This paper supports the scientific position that panpsychism is a valid category of possible resolutions to the hard problem of consciousness, and it focuses on a solution to the 'combination problem' in panpsychism. I argue for a new way of thinking about consciousness in which consciousness is not viewed in reference to subjects, and that the concept of a 'subject' is borne of the illusion of self. Therefore, we don't face a combination problem if the notion of a subject is superfluous and consciousness itself is pervasive in the form of a field. The paper is also a more general discussion about the importance of pursuing this scientific question in the twenty-first century: is consciousness a more fundamental aspect of the universe than we have previously assumed?

William James's Philosophy of Mind: Between Neutral Monism and Panpsychism

This paper is an introduction to William James' philosophy of mind and is intended to prepare the reader for his work “How Two Minds Can Know One Thing”. The views of William James on three topics in the philosophy of mind are considered: panpsychism, neutral monism, and combination problem. There is a very deep connection between the modern analytical philosophy of mind and the philosophy of this author. A variety of neutral monism, to which James adhered, is analyzed, including the problem of neutrality of substance. Neutral monism in practice does not provide complete independence of a substance from mental and physical properties, and therefore neutral monism may tend to panpsychism if we are not talking about its idealistic varieties. The author concerns the relationship between panpsychism and neutral monism as two approaches to the combination problem. James's panpsychism is analyzed in terms of modern classification. Paper selectively considers individual episodes in James's philosophy in which he adhered to such panpsychism varieties as panexperientialism and panqualityism. The following is a question of the influence of James's combination problem on his philosophy as well as on modern analytical philosophy of mind. At different periods of time, James took, at first glance, mutually exclusive viewpoints on these issues. It is shown that the analysis of James's concept, taking into account the modern development of panpsychism, allows seeing an additional internal consistency in his systematic consideration of the phenomenon of consciousness.

7. The Free Movement of Persons

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offer the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and illustrative diagrams and flowcharts. This chapter presents sample exam questions along with examiner’s tips, answer plans, and suggested answers about the free movement of persons in the EU. The area of law straddles three main subdivisions, comprising the free movement of workers, involving most of the secondary legislation and case law; secondly the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services; and additionally now, Union citizenship. The chapter includes all types of questions, such as combination essay-type questions, combination problem-type questions, problem questions concerned only with the free movement of workers, an essay-type question concentrating on the free movement of professionals and questions which involve citizenship and wider free movement issues.