Panprotopsychism Instantiated

The problem of many-over-one asks how it can be that many properties are ever instantiated by one object. A putative solution might, for example, claim that the properties are appropriately bundled, or somehow tied to a bare particular. In this essay, the author argues that, surprisingly, an extant candidate solution to this problem is at the same time an independently developed candidate solution to the mind-body problem. Specifically, what is argued here to be the best version of the relata-specific bundle theory—the thesis that each instance of compresence has a special intrinsic nature in virtue of which it necessarily bundles its specific bundle-ees—is also a species of Russellian monism, labeled by David Chalmers as ‘constitutive Russellian panprotopsychism’. The upshot of this connection is significant for the metaphysics of the mind-body problem: a credible theory of property instantiation turns out to have a built-in account of how consciousness is grounded in certain (broadly) physical systems.

Russellian Monism to the Rescue?

This chapter elaborates two standard versions of a view of consciousness known as Russellian Monism. The key idea of this view is that the fundamental entities in micro-reality have intrinsic natures not specified in microphysics, natures that include a range of properties crucial to consciousness and conscious states. The reductive version holds that the relevant properties are themselves genuinely conscious properties of various sorts. The primitivist version holds that the relevant properties ground macro-level conscious properties without themselves involving consciousness. It is shown that neither version is defensible and that neither helps with the paradox.

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.

Grounding the Qualitative: A New Challenge for Panpsychism

This paper presents a novel challenge for the panpsychist solution to the problem of consciousness. It advances three main claims. First, that the problem of consciousness is really an instance of a more general problem: that of grounding the qualitative. Second, that we should want a general solution to this problem. Third, that panpsychism cannot provide it. I also suggest two further things: (1) that alternative kinds of Russellian monism may avoid the problem in ways panpsychists cannot, and (2) that a kind of neo-Aristotelian or ground-theoretical physicalism fares just as well here if not better.

Russellian Monism

Russellian monism is a quite general approach to the problem of consciousness, which comes in a variety of forms depending on what is said about the categorical properties of basic physical entities. We can usefully distinguish between panpsychist and panprotopsychist forms. Panpsychist Russellian monists hold that the categorical properties of basic physical entities are experiential properties. Panprotopsychist Russellian monists hold that the categorical properties of basic physical entities are proto-experiential, where proto-experiential properties are not themselves experiential properties but are crucial ingredients in facts that explain the production of consciousness. The first half of this chapter will discuss panpsychist forms of Russellian monism, the second half will discuss panprotopsychist forms.

Russellian physicalism and protophenomenal properties

According to Russellian monism, phenomenal consciousness is constituted by inscrutables: intrinsic properties that categorically ground dispositional properties described by fundamental physics. On Russellian physicalism, those inscrutables are construed as protophenomenal properties: non-structural properties that both categorically ground dispositional properties and, perhaps when appropriately structured, collectively constitute phenomenal properties. Morris and Brown (Journal of Consciousness Studies 2016, 2017) argue that protophenomenal properties cannot serve this purpose, given assumptions Russellian monists typically make about the modal profile of such properties. Those assumptions, it is argued, entail that protophenomenal properties are ‘experience specific’, that is, they are individuated by their potential to constitute phenomenal properties, and are thus not genuinely physical. However, we argue, that reasoning assumes that physical inscrutables must be individuated in terms of their (actual or possible) grounding roles. Not only is that assumption questionable: it is antithetical to Russellian monism.

What did Mary know? Russellian Monism Without Intrinsics

The Mary thought experiment aims to demonstrate that science cannot capture what experiences feel like. Russellian Monism (RM) avoids this problem by claiming that phenomenality is an intrinsic (non-relational and non-dispositional) property of matter and beyond the scope of science, which is limited to describing extrinsic (relational and dispositional) properties. Against RM, I argue that metaphysical intrinsicality is not compatible with neuroscientific theories where experiences are considered as causal processes. Second, I argue that if intrinsic properties have causal power, they can also affect neuroscientific measuring devices and be scientifically modeled. Thus, intrinsic properties are not inscrutable, as RM holds. In the third part of the article, I sketch the outlines of RM without intrinsics. I propose that the core Kantian thesis of RM about limits of science can be maintained without postulating metaphysical intrinsics. I argue that metaphysical intrinsicality can be replaced with Weak Intrinsicality, meaning model-independence. Science is confined to observations and models, whereas an experience is the concrete, model-independent process that produces observations of its neural mechanisms. On this account, the epistemic gap is difference between a model and the modeled.