The Hard Problem is basically “what part of the equation for wavefunction of the universe says that we are not zombies”. The answer of panpsychism is “the part where we say that it is real”.
I don’t think I understand. I would say that the Hard Problem is more “why and how do we have subjective experience, rather than experiencing nothing”. If you say that “everything has it”, that doesn’t seem to answer the question—okay, everything is conscious, but why and how is everything conscious?
Oh, and if by “why and how is everything conscious” you mean “why believe in panpsychism” and not “what causes consciousness in panpsychist view” then, first, it’s less about how panpsychism solves The Hard Problem, and more about why accept this particular solution. So, moving goalposts and all that^^. I don’t quite understand why would someone be so reluctant to accept any solution that is kinda physicalist and kinda non-epiphenomenal, considering people say that they don’t even understand how solution would look in principle. But there are reasons why panpsychism is the only acceptable solution: if consciousness influences physical world, then it either requires new physics (including strong emergence), or it is present in everything. You can detect difference between different states of mind with just weak emergence, but only “cogito, ergo sum” doesn’t also work in zombie world.
why and how do we have subjective experience, rather than experiencing nothing
Because we exist. “Because” not in the sense of casual dependency, but in the sense of equivalence. The point is that we have two concepts (existence and consciousness) that represent the same thing in reality. “Why they are the same” is equivalent to “why there is no additional “consciousness” thing” and that is just asking why reality is like it is. And it is not the same as saying “it’s just the way world is, that we have subjective experience” right away—panpsychism additionally states that not only we have experience, and provides a place for consciousness in purely physical worldview.
And for “how”—well, it’s the question of the nature of existence, because there is no place for mechanism between existence and consciousness—they are just the same thing. So, for example, different physical
configurations mean different (but maybe indistinguishable by agent) experiences. And not sure if it counts as “how”, but equivalence between consciousness and existence
means every specific aspect of consciousness can be analysed by usual scientific methods—“experience of seeng blue” can be emergent, while consciousness itself is fundamental.
I mean, sure, “why everything exists” is an open question, so it may seem like pointless redefinition. But if we started with two problems and ended with one, then one of them is solved.
But the problems with existence don’t become more severe because of merging of “existence” and “consciousness” concepts. On the contrary: before we didn’t have any concrete idea of what it would mean to exist or not, but now we can at least use our intuitions about consciousness instead. And, on the other hand, all problematic aspects of consciousness (like surprising certainty about having it) are contained in existence.
Amusingly, I’ve just got from a flight where I put my backpack into my bag, so I could use it for luggage on the return flight^^.
I don’t think I understand. I would say that the Hard Problem is more “why and how do we have subjective experience, rather than experiencing nothing”. If you say that “everything has it”, that doesn’t seem to answer the question—okay, everything is conscious, but why and how is everything conscious?
Oh, and if by “why and how is everything conscious” you mean “why believe in panpsychism” and not “what causes consciousness in panpsychist view” then, first, it’s less about how panpsychism solves The Hard Problem, and more about why accept this particular solution. So, moving goalposts and all that^^. I don’t quite understand why would someone be so reluctant to accept any solution that is kinda physicalist and kinda non-epiphenomenal, considering people say that they don’t even understand how solution would look in principle. But there are reasons why panpsychism is the only acceptable solution: if consciousness influences physical world, then it either requires new physics (including strong emergence), or it is present in everything. You can detect difference between different states of mind with just weak emergence, but only “cogito, ergo sum” doesn’t also work in zombie world.
Because we exist. “Because” not in the sense of casual dependency, but in the sense of equivalence. The point is that we have two concepts (existence and consciousness) that represent the same thing in reality. “Why they are the same” is equivalent to “why there is no additional “consciousness” thing” and that is just asking why reality is like it is. And it is not the same as saying “it’s just the way world is, that we have subjective experience” right away—panpsychism additionally states that not only we have experience, and provides a place for consciousness in purely physical worldview.
And for “how”—well, it’s the question of the nature of existence, because there is no place for mechanism between existence and consciousness—they are just the same thing. So, for example, different physical configurations mean different (but maybe indistinguishable by agent) experiences. And not sure if it counts as “how”, but equivalence between consciousness and existence means every specific aspect of consciousness can be analysed by usual scientific methods—“experience of seeng blue” can be emergent, while consciousness itself is fundamental.
I mean, sure, “why everything exists” is an open question, so it may seem like pointless redefinition. But if we started with two problems and ended with one, then one of them is solved.
You won’t escape an excess baggage charge by putting both your suitcases into one big case.
But the problems with existence don’t become more severe because of merging of “existence” and “consciousness” concepts. On the contrary: before we didn’t have any concrete idea of what it would mean to exist or not, but now we can at least use our intuitions about consciousness instead. And, on the other hand, all problematic aspects of consciousness (like surprising certainty about having it) are contained in existence.
Amusingly, I’ve just got from a flight where I put my backpack into my bag, so I could use it for luggage on the return flight^^.