Original paper UDC 13(045) doi: 10.21464/sp34111 Received: 21 March 2018 Hane Htut Maung University of Manchester, School of Social Sciences, Humanities Bridgeford Street, Manchester M13 9PL, UK [email protected] Panpsychism, Conceivability, and Dualism Redux Abstract In contemporary philosophy of mind, the conceivability argument against physicalism is often used to support a form of dualism, which takes consciousness to be ontologically fun- damental and distinct from physical matter. Recently, some proponents of the conceivabil- ity argument have also shown interest in panpsychism, which is the view that mentality is ubiquitous in the natural world. This paper examines the extent to which panpsychism can be sustained if the conceivability argument is taken seriously. I argue that panpsychism’s ubiquity claim permits a strong reading or a weak reading. This presents a dilemma. On the one hand, the strong reading, which is typically characterised as a form of monism, is undermined by the conceivability argument. On the other hand, the weak reading, while compatible with the conceivability argument, turns out just to be a special case of dualism. I also show that the related position of panprotopsychism cannot provide a tenable mon- ist position because it too cannot withstand the challenge of the conceivability argument. Therefore, if the conceivability argument is taken seriously, then we are committed to a dualist metaphysics, regardless of whether or not we accept the ubiquity claim. Keywords philosophy of mind, consciousness, dualism, panpsychism, conceivability argument Introduction Physicalism, also known as materialism, is the view that everything meta- physically supervenes on the physical features of the world. This view is chal- lenged by the conceivability argument, which proceeds from the logical con- ceivability of a world that is physically indistinguishable from our world but differing or lacking in phenomenality to the conclusion that phenomenality does not metaphysically supervene on the physical (Chalmers 1996). In light of this conclusion, some philosophers endorse a form of dualism, which takes consciousness to be ontologically fundamental and distinct from the physical features of the world (Chalmers 1996; Gertler 2007; Nida‐Rümelin 2010; Fürst 2011; BonJour 2013). In recent years, there has also been interest in panpsychism, which is broadly the view that mentality is ubiquitous among the fundamental constituents of the material universe (Seager 1995; Strawson 2006; Goff 2017). Some supporters of this view suggest that panpsychism, unlike traditional physicalism, is not challenged by the conceivability argu- ment, and so they hope that it might provide a potential monist alternative to dualism. In this paper, I argue that this hope is misguided. If the conceivability argument is taken seriously, then any form of monism is refuted, and the only defensible version of panpsychism is just a special case of dualism. My argument will SYNTHESIS PHILOSOPHICA H. H. Maung, Panpsychism, Conceivability, 67 (1/2019) pp. (157–172) 158 and Dualism Redux proceed as follows. I will distinguish between strong and weak readings of panpsychism’s claim that mentality is ubiquitous among the constituents of the natural world. I will argue that the strong reading, which suggests a form of monism, is undermined by the conceivability argument. Furthermore, any attempt to give up the conceivability argument to avoid this outcome would itself undermine a key motivation for considering panpsychism. I will then argue that the weak reading, while not challenged by the conceivability argu- ment, is just an extravagant version of dualism. Although this is more defen- sible than the strong reading, there appears to be no strong reason to prefer it to the version of dualism that is more familiar in the philosophical literature. Hence, I suggest that it would be wise for the proponent of the conceivability argument who accepts that dualism is true to hold off any strong commit- ment to the weak ubiquity claim. Finally, I will show that the related posi- tion of panprotopsychism also fails to provide an alternative monist position, because this too is undermined by the conceivability argument. The upshot is that taking the conceivability argument seriously commits us to a dualist metaphysics, regardless of whether or not we accept the panpsychist’s claim that mentality is ubiquitous. The conceivability argument for dualism Over the past four decades, several philosophers have put forward influential arguments against physicalism, including the modal argument (Kripke 1980), the knowledge argument (Jackson 1982), the explanatory gap argument (Le- vine 1983), and the conceivability argument (Chalmers 1996). These argu- ments appeal to the phenomenal character of consciousness. When a stimulus is perceived, such as a red object, there occurs a whir of causal activity in the brain. This activity does not go on “in the dark” but is accompanied by first- person subjective experience (Chalmers 1996, 4). To borrow an expression by Thomas Nagel (1974), there is “something it is like” to be a conscious subject. According to the aforementioned arguments, there is an epistemic gap between the totality of physical facts about the world and the phenomenal fact about subjective experience. That is to say, once we have the complete physical facts about the structure and dynamics of a system, the presence of consciousness, qua first-person subject of experience, remains a further fact to be considered. Therefore, the physical facts do not exhaust all the facts about the world, indicating that physicalism is false. David Chalmers couches the above in terms of logical conceivability and metaphysical possibility. He gives the following formulation of the conceiv- ability argument, where P is the totality of physical facts about the world and Q is any given phenomenal fact: 1. P&~Q is conceivable. 2. If P&~Q is conceivable, P&~Q is metaphysically possible. 3. If P&~Q is metaphysically possible, materialism is false. —— 4. Materialism is false. (Chalmers 2010, 142) The basic idea is that there is no logical contradiction in a world that is in- distinguishable from our world concerning the totality of physical facts, but which differs from our world with respect to some phenomenal fact about consciousness. It follows that this phenomenal fact about consciousness is an SYNTHESIS PHILOSOPHICA H. H. Maung, Panpsychism, Conceivability, 67 (1/2019) pp. (157–172) 159 and Dualism Redux extra fact that is not captured by the totality of physical facts, and so physical- ism is false. This can be illustrated with some examples. Chalmers (1996) considers the logical conceivability of a zombie, which is a system that is physically indis- tinguishable from a conscious human being, but which lacks phenomenal- ity. That is to say, the physical processes in the conscious human being and in the zombie are structurally and dynamically the same, but any subjective experience in the zombie does not accompany these processes. The logical conceivability of a zombie world which is indistinguishable from our world with respect to its physical facts indicates that the presence of consciousness is an extra fact that is not entailed by the physical facts. To take another ex- ample, Sydney Shoemaker (1982) considers the logical conceivability of a conscious being in another world who is physically indistinguishable from a human being in this world, but whose phenomenal quality of experience is inverted. That is to say, the physical process that is accompanied by phenom- enal quality A in the human being is accompanied by phenomenal quality B in the inverted being, while the physical process that is accompanied by B in the human being is accompanied by A in the inverted being. The logical conceivability of such a phenomenally inverted world which is nonetheless physically indistinguishable from our world indicates that subjective experi- ence is an extra fact that is not entailed by the physical facts. Of course, the conceivability argument and the zombie example are both controversial, and it may be simpler for the dualist to argue from the irre- ducibility of phenomenality to physicality that some “extra ingredient” is needed (Chalmers 1995). Objections to the conceivability argument have been raised by a number of critics (Loar 1990; Hill 1997; Balog 1999; Perry 2001). Comprehensive replies to these objections can be found in Chalmers (2010, 154–192). In recent years, there have also been scholars who have at- tempted to sidestep the conceivability argument by suggesting that phenom- enal experience is an illusion (Dennett 2017; Frankish 2016). My response, which is in line with what has been argued by various philosophers, is that illusionism is false in virtue of its being incoherent. If experience is an illu- sion, then it just seems to be real, but seeming is itself an experience, and so it necessarily follows that experience exists (Nagel 2017; Seager 2017; Straw- son 2018). In spite of the conceivability argument’s controversial status, my reason for framing my discussion around it is that some prominent contempo- rary panpsychists take the conceivability argument to be a key motivation for considering panpsychism as an alternative to traditional physicalism (Seager 1995; Goff 2017). Hence, while a reader may note that much of what I claim is conditional on the plausibility of the conceivability argument, my justifica- tion for taking the plausibility of the conceivability argument for granted is that I am addressing the panpsychists on their terms. The conceivability argument, if sound, refutes physicalism, and so some other metaphysical position is required to account for phenomenality. In light of this, many philosophers have proposed that a form of dualism is true. As well as Chalmers (1996), contemporary proponents of dualism in the philosophy of mind include Brie Gertler (2007), Martine Nida-Rümelin (2010), Martina Fürst (2011), and Laurence BonJour (2013). According to dualism, conscious- ness is ontologically fundamental and distinct from the physical features of the world. Hence, phenomenality does not metaphysically supervene on phys- icality.