The panpsychism argument is probably the most compelling one among all of these. The problem with it is that if percepts are the basic substance of the universe howcome we have experiences that we cannot predict? It implies our future experiences are determined by something outside of our own minds.
One way to answer it is to turn to the solipsistic way—that is, there is no outside universe, but there are laws which convert one experience into the next one. I would not try to defend the point, as it has one clear weakness: it is not parsimonious, as it requires extremely complex laws to convert one experience in the next, and, more over, these laws are exactly the outside world, after some normalisation.
That is my view precisely. One way out is to assert that there is at least one mind responsible for providing the percepts available to other minds, and from its perspective nothing is unknown and it fills the function of the “outside world”.
The panpsychism argument is probably the most compelling one among all of these. The problem with it is that if percepts are the basic substance of the universe howcome we have experiences that we cannot predict? It implies our future experiences are determined by something outside of our own minds.
Or that our minds define a probability distribution over future experiences.
One way to answer it is to turn to the solipsistic way—that is, there is no outside universe, but there are laws which convert one experience into the next one. I would not try to defend the point, as it has one clear weakness: it is not parsimonious, as it requires extremely complex laws to convert one experience in the next, and, more over, these laws are exactly the outside world, after some normalisation.
these laws are exactly the outside world
That is my view precisely. One way out is to assert that there is at least one mind responsible for providing the percepts available to other minds, and from its perspective nothing is unknown and it fills the function of the “outside world”.