> the bizarre solution panpsychism proposes to the problem of how to fit consciousness into the natural world is completely unnecessary
This line highlights the core difference between panpsychists and their critics.
Personally, I think panpsychism is an elegant, simple, and natural solution to the Hard Problem. It strikes me as having a strong prior probability, i.e. if you were describing a hypothetical universe to me, I'd put the odds of "everything in the universe is capable of perception" at something like 50/50.
Critics seem to think this is bizarre, and put it in the bucket of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I understand why, but I disagree. I think this is yet another example of anthropocentric thought, which has continually fallen to more inclusive models (e.g. heliocentrism and evolution)
This line highlights the core difference between panpsychists and their critics.
Personally, I think panpsychism is an elegant, simple, and natural solution to the Hard Problem. It strikes me as having a strong prior probability, i.e. if you were describing a hypothetical universe to me, I'd put the odds of "everything in the universe is capable of perception" at something like 50/50.
Critics seem to think this is bizarre, and put it in the bucket of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I understand why, but I disagree. I think this is yet another example of anthropocentric thought, which has continually fallen to more inclusive models (e.g. heliocentrism and evolution)