The notion that consciousness pervades all of nature might seem like a relic of pre-scientific thinking, yet panpsychism—the view that mentality is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality—has experienced a remarkable revival in contemporary philosophy of mind.This resurgence reflects not mere intellectual curiosity but a serious attempt to solve one of philosophy’s most enduring puzzles: the hard problem of consciousness. Far from being a retreat into mysticism, modern panpsychism represents a sophisticated philosophical position that challenges our most basic assumptions about the nature of mind, matter, and their relationship.

What makes panpsychism particularly compelling is its promise to bridge the explanatory gap between physical processes and subjective experience without abandoning either scientific naturalism or the reality of consciousness. As neuroscience continues to map the neural correlates of consciousness while failing to explain why there is subjective experience at all, panpsychism offers a radical yet logically coherent alternative: perhaps consciousness doesn’t emerge from complex arrangements of non-conscious matter, but rather constitutes the intrinsic nature of matter itself.

This position has attracted some of the most distinguished minds in philosophy and science, from historical figures like William James and Bertrand Russell to contemporary philosophers like David Chalmers and neuroscientists like Giulio Tononi. Their collective work suggests that panpsychism may represent not just another philosophical curiosity, but a genuinely revolutionary approach to understanding the nature of reality itself.

The central proposition and its philosophical foundations

At its core, panpsychism asserts that consciousness or some form of mentality is a fundamental feature of reality, present at least in all elementary particles and possibly in all physical entities. This doesn’t mean that electrons have complex thoughts or that rocks experience emotions, but rather that there exists some primitive form of subjective experience—however simple—at the most basic levels of physical reality.

The philosophical foundation of panpsychism rests on several key insights about the nature of consciousness and matter. First, consciousness appears to be irreducible to purely physical processes as typically conceived. The qualitative, subjective aspects of experience—what philosophers call “qualia”—seem categorically different from the quantitative, objective properties that physics describes. When we see red or feel pain, there’s something it’s like to have these experiences that cannot be captured by purely structural or functional descriptions.

Second, panpsychism addresses what many philosophers consider the fundamental problem with physicalism: the emergence of consciousness from non-conscious matter would constitute what Galen Strawson calls “brute emergence”—a kind of magical transformation that violates our understanding of how properties can arise from their constituents. If consciousness emerges from brain activity, panpsychists argue, then the constituents of brains must already possess some form of consciousness-involving properties.

The contemporary formulation of panpsychism often adopts what’s known as “Russellian monism,” named after Bertrand Russell’s insight that physics only describes the structural and relational properties of matter, remaining silent about its intrinsic nature. Russell suggested that consciousness might provide this missing intrinsic nature, making panpsychism not just consistent with physical science but potentially required by it.

This approach offers a naturalistic solution to the mind-body problem that avoids both the interaction problems of dualism and the explanatory gaps of physicalism. Rather than consciousness being separate from the physical world or reducible to it, consciousness becomes the intrinsic aspect of physical reality—the “inside” of what physics describes from the “outside.”

Historical advocates and the development of panpsychist thought

The intellectual lineage of panpsychism stretches back to the very foundations of Western philosophy, revealing a persistent tradition of thinkers who found compelling reasons to attribute mentality to the natural world. Thales, often considered the first Western philosopher, argued that “all things are full of gods” based on his observation that magnets could move iron and therefore possessed souls. This analogical reasoning from self-movement to mentality would echo through centuries of philosophical development.

The ancient Greeks developed increasingly sophisticated versions of panpsychist thought. Anaxagoras introduced nous (mind) as the cosmic organizing principle, arguing that mind was present everywhere but manifested differently in different contexts. Plato’s later dialogues explored themes of anima mundi (world-soul), while the Stoics developed a systematic panpsychist cosmology centered on pneuma as divine intelligence permeating all things.

The Renaissance witnessed a remarkable revival of panpsychist thinking. Giordano Bruno, burned at the stake partly for his philosophical views, declared that “there is nothing that does not possess a soul and that has no vital principle.” Francesco Patrizi actually introduced the term “panpsychism” into Western vocabulary in his 1591 work New Philosophy of the Universe, creating a hierarchical system with anima permeating all levels of reality.

The early modern period saw panpsychism develop into increasingly systematic forms. Spinoza’s Ethics presented perhaps the most rigorous early modern panpsychist system, arguing that every physical object has a corresponding “idea” or mental aspect. His dual-aspect monism held that mind and matter are two attributes of a single substance, making all things “animate” though “in different degrees.”

Leibniz created an entirely mentalistic universe through his Monadology, where reality consists of “absolutely simple” mental substances called monads, each with “perception” and “appetite.” Every monad represents the entire universe from its unique perspective, creating a thoroughly panpsychist metaphysics that influenced centuries of subsequent thought.

The 19th century represented the “heyday of panpsychism” with numerous distinguished philosophers embracing the doctrine. Arthur Schopenhauer developed a sophisticated system where will constitutes the inner nature of all things, arguing that “every original force manifesting itself in physical and chemical appearances are absolutely identical with what we find in ourselves as will.” Gustav Fechner extended panpsychism to plant consciousness and the Earth as animate, while Rudolf Hermann Lotze argued that all material objects have “a double life, appearing outwardly as matter while internally moved mentally.”

American philosophy produced its own panpsychist tradition through figures like William James, who developed “neutral monism” and endorsed “a general view of the world almost identical with Fechner’s.” James also identified the “mind dust” problem that would later become central to contemporary discussions of the “combination problem.”

The early 20th century saw panpsychism reach its philosophical culmination in Alfred North Whitehead’s Process and Reality. Whitehead’s philosophy of “actual occasions” or “occasions of experience” as fundamental reality represented a radical reformation of metaphysics. Each occasion involves both physical and mental “poles” and “prehensions” (feelings) of the environment, creating a universe where “each actual entity is a throb of experience.”

This rich historical tradition demonstrates that panpsychism has consistently attracted serious philosophical attention as a solution to fundamental problems about the nature of mind and reality. The temporary decline of panpsychism in the mid-20th century, driven by logical positivism and behaviorism, now appears as an anomaly rather than a permanent rejection of the position.

Contemporary developments and leading advocates

The contemporary revival of panpsychism began in the 1970s and has gained considerable momentum in the 21st century, driven by the persistent failure of physicalism to explain consciousness and the recognition that the “hard problem” requires fundamentally new approaches. David Chalmers, who formulated the hard problem of consciousness, has explored panpsychism as a potential solution, arguing that it represents a synthesis between the thesis of materialism and the antithesis of dualism.

Chalmers’ work has been foundational in legitimizing panpsychism within analytic philosophy. His detailed analysis of the “combination problem”—how micro-level conscious experiences might combine to form unified macro-level consciousness—has set the agenda for contemporary research. While acknowledging this as panpsychism’s greatest challenge, Chalmers continues to explore potential solutions and has developed sophisticated taxonomies of panpsychist positions.

Galen Strawson has provided perhaps the most influential argument for panpsychism through his “realistic physicalism” approach. Strawson argues that if one is a serious physicalist who accepts that consciousness exists, one must accept panpsychism. His reasoning proceeds through the impossibility of “radical emergence”: consciousness cannot intelligibly arise from purely non-conscious matter because this would involve the kind of “brute emergence” that violates our understanding of how properties relate to their constituents.

Philip Goff has emerged as the most prominent contemporary advocate of panpsychism, developing sophisticated arguments and systematically addressing objections. His “simplicity argument” contends that panpsychism is the most theoretically virtuous hypothesis about the intrinsic nature of matter. Goff has also developed “cosmopsychism,” which holds that the universe as a whole is conscious rather than individual particles, potentially avoiding some combination problems by starting with unified cosmic consciousness.

While not explicitly panpsychist, IIT proposes that consciousness corresponds to integrated information, and this measure can theoretically be applied to any physical system, implying that even simple systems might have minimal consciousness. Tononi openly acknowledges these panpsychist implications and has collaborated with philosopher Christof Koch to explore them.

while his later work Mind and Cosmos further developed anti-materialist arguments. Luke Roelofs has explored the social aspects of consciousness and group minds, while William Seager has developed detailed responses to objections and historical analyses.

The field has seen remarkable institutional development, with major academic conferences, specialized journal issues, and dedicated volumes from prestigious presses. This suggests that panpsychism has successfully transitioned from a marginal position to a serious academic option in contemporary philosophy of mind.

Major criticisms and philosophical challenges

Despite its revival, panpsychism faces formidable objections that challenge both its internal coherence and its viability as a solution to the hard problem of consciousness. The most significant criticism is the “combination problem,” first articulated by William James and given systematic treatment by contemporary philosophers. This problem has multiple dimensions, each raising fundamental questions about how panpsychism could actually work.

The “subject-summing problem” questions how multiple micro-subjects of experience could combine to form a single macro-subject like human consciousness. As James put it, even if you take “a hundred feelings, shuffle them and pack them as close together as you can,” each remains “shut in its own skin, windowless, ignorant of what the other feelings are and mean.” Contemporary philosopher David Chalmers has formalized this objection by arguing that one can conceive of all micro-level experiences existing without any macro-level consciousness, suggesting that micro-experiences cannot necessitate macro-consciousness.

The “quality combination problem” or “palette problem” challenges how a limited number of fundamental micro-qualities could generate the vast array of macro-qualities we experience. If there are only a few fundamental physical properties with corresponding phenomenal aspects, how can they combine to produce the enormous variety of colors, sounds, tastes, and other experiential qualities that characterize human consciousness?

The “structural combination problem” highlights the apparent mismatch between the structure of conscious experience and the structure of brain activity. Our visual experience, for instance, seems to have a unified field-like structure that differs radically from the discrete, distributed activity of neurons. How could discrete micro-experiences combine to yield the smooth, continuous nature of macro-experience?

Scientific objections focus on panpsychism’s empirical content and testability. Critics argue that the theory lacks falsifiability and makes no testable predictions. John Searle dismisses panpsychism as not even “getting up to the level of being false” because “no clear notion has been given to the claim.” The absence of any behavioral differences between supposedly conscious and non-conscious particles raises questions about the theory’s empirical significance.

Philosophical objections about conceptual coherence include the “incredulous stare” argument—that panpsychism is simply too counterintuitive to be taken seriously. The “revelation argument” questions why, if consciousness is constituted by vast arrays of micro-experiences, we don’t experience these components in introspection. The “boundary problem” asks how to determine what constitutes a conscious entity and where one conscious being ends and another begins.

Different philosophical perspectives offer their own criticisms. Eliminative materialists argue that consciousness as commonly conceived doesn’t exist and will be eliminated from mature science. Functionalists contend that consciousness is constituted by functional roles rather than intrinsic phenomenal properties. Emergentists argue that panpsychism prematurely abandons the project of explaining consciousness through emergence.

Contemporary panpsychists have developed sophisticated responses to these objections. Philip Goff proposes “phenomenal bonding relations” as a potential solution to the combination problem, while cosmopsychists like Itay Shani argue that universal consciousness might avoid micro-to-macro combination issues. Others adopt “panprotopsychism,” holding that fundamental entities have proto-phenomenal rather than phenomenal properties.

However, these responses remain contentious, and many philosophers consider the combination problem to be fatal to panpsychism. The debate continues with no consensus on whether panpsychist solutions are viable or whether the objections are decisive.

Panpsychism’s place in the realism versus idealism debate

The relationship between panpsychism and idealism represents one of the most complex and debated aspects of the position’s philosophical significance. While both views hold that everything has some form of experience or mental aspect, their fundamental commitments about the nature of reality differ in crucial ways.

Idealism, in its various forms, holds that reality is fundamentally mental in character. Physical things, according to idealists, are either ideas in minds (as in Berkeley’s subjective idealism) or manifestations of absolute spirit (as in Hegelian absolute idealism). The physical world, on this view, lacks independent existence and is either mind-dependent or reducible to mental phenomena.

Panpsychism, by contrast, typically accepts the independent reality of the physical world while arguing that consciousness constitutes its intrinsic nature. Modern panpsychists generally embrace what’s called “Russellian monism”—the view that physics reveals only the structural and relational properties of matter, while consciousness provides its intrinsic, qualitative nature. This position maintains the reality of both mental and physical properties while arguing for their deep unity.

The historical relationship between these positions has been complex and sometimes overlapping. Nineteenth-century figures like Josiah Royce and Rudolf Hermann Lotze developed forms of “idealist panpsychism” where the distinction between the positions becomes blurred. Royce argued that “we have no sort of right to speak as if the inner experience behind any fact of nature were of a grade lower than ours,” while maintaining an absolute idealist framework.

Charles Hartshorne, a leading 20th-century process philosopher, drew a clear distinction between the positions. He argued that idealists either reject the external world or see it as ideas in God’s mind, while panpsychists accept the world’s reality but view it as composed of minds or mind-like entities. This distinction highlights panpsychism’s commitment to naturalism and its compatibility with scientific realism.

Contemporary discussions often position panpsychism as a form of realism about consciousness that avoids both physicalist reductionism and idealist anti-realism about the physical world. Philip Goff argues that panpsychism offers “realistic monism” that takes both consciousness and physical science seriously without reducing either to the other.

However, the boundaries remain contested. Some philosophers argue that certain formulations of panpsychism, particularly those emphasizing the primacy of experience, collapse into forms of idealism. Others contend that the differences are substantial and that panpsychism represents a genuine “third way” between materialism and idealism.

The debate over panpsychism’s place in the realism-idealism spectrum reflects deeper questions about the nature of objectivity, the relationship between mind and world, and the possibility of a unified understanding of reality. As panpsychism continues to develop, these questions will likely remain central to its philosophical significance.

Scientific and interdisciplinary connections

The relationship between panpsychism and empirical science represents both an opportunity and a challenge for the position. While panpsychism emerged from philosophical reflection on the hard problem of consciousness, its implications extend into psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and even physics.

In neuroscience, Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory has provided the most direct connection between panpsychist ideas and empirical research. IIT proposes that consciousness corresponds to integrated information (Φ), and this measure can theoretically be applied to any physical system. The theory suggests that even simple systems like photodiodes might have minimal consciousness, leading Tononi to openly acknowledge the panpsychist implications of his work.

IIT has generated significant empirical research, including the development of the Perturbational Complexity Index (PCI) for assessing consciousness levels in patients with disorders of consciousness. This work demonstrates how panpsychist ideas might inform practical neuroscientific research, even if the broader philosophical implications remain contested.

The theory has also influenced debates about machine consciousness and artificial intelligence. IIT suggests that digital computers, despite their complexity, cannot be conscious because they lack the integrated information structure that consciousness requires. This has implications for AI development and raises questions about whether consciousness requires specific physical substrates.

In cognitive science, panpsychism intersects with debates about the nature of mental representation and the relationship between consciousness and information processing. Some researchers explore whether panpsychist approaches might inform understanding of distributed cognition, group minds, and the social aspects of consciousness.

The connection to quantum mechanics remains speculative but persistent. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that consciousness plays a role in measurement and wave function collapse. While most physicists remain skeptical of these connections, philosophers like David Chalmers have explored how panpsychist ideas might relate to quantum field theory and the foundations of physics.

Psychology has been less directly influenced by panpsychist ideas, though some researchers investigate consciousness in non-human animals and simple organisms. Studies of plant behavior, bacterial decision-making, and slime mold problem-solving raise questions about the boundaries of consciousness that panpsychism might illuminate.

The empirical challenges facing panpsychism are significant. The theory makes no clear testable predictions, and there are no established methods for detecting consciousness in simple systems. Critics argue that this lack of empirical content makes panpsychism scientifically irrelevant, while supporters contend that consciousness research more generally faces similar challenges.

The integration of panpsychism with scientific research remains an active area of development. Whether the position can generate productive empirical research programs will likely determine its long-term influence on scientific understanding of consciousness.

Contemporary debates and future directions

The contemporary landscape of panpsychist thought is characterized by active debates over fundamental questions about the nature of consciousness, its distribution in nature, and its relationship to physical reality. These debates reflect both the vitality of the position and the challenges it faces in developing into a mature philosophical and scientific framework.

One of the most significant contemporary debates concerns the proper formulation of panpsychism itself. “Micropsychism” holds that consciousness is fundamental at the level of elementary particles, while “cosmopsychism” argues that consciousness is fundamental at the level of the universe as a whole. Philip Goff and other cosmopsychists argue that their approach avoids some combination problems by starting with unified cosmic consciousness that grounds individual minds rather than trying to build up from micro-experiences. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The debate between “panpsychism” and “panprotopsychism” addresses whether fundamental entities possess actual consciousness or merely proto-conscious properties that become full consciousness only in complex systems. Wikipedia This distinction might help address some objections about the attribution of consciousness to simple systems while maintaining the anti-emergence insights that motivate panpsychist approaches.

Contemporary philosophers are also exploring various solutions to the combination problem. Some propose “phenomenal bonding relations” as fundamental connections between micro-experiences. Others explore quantum mechanical approaches, suggesting that entanglement might provide the unity needed for combined consciousness. Still others develop “emergentist panpsychism,” arguing that complex forms of consciousness can emerge from simpler conscious entities without the problematic “brute emergence” that panpsychists reject.

The relationship between panpsychism and neuroscience continues to evolve. Beyond IIT, researchers are exploring how panpsychist ideas might relate to other theories of consciousness, including global workspace theory, higher-order thought theories, and predictive processing approaches. These investigations might reveal whether panpsychism can generate novel empirical predictions or research programs.

Debates about the methodology of consciousness research intersect with panpsychist discussions. Some argue that the hard problem requires philosophical rather than purely empirical approaches, while others contend that consciousness research must remain scientifically grounded. The resolution of these methodological questions will influence panpsychism’s future development.

The ethical implications of panpsychism are beginning to receive attention. If consciousness is ubiquitous, what are the moral implications for our treatment of natural systems? Some philosophers explore connections between panpsychism and environmental ethics, while others question whether micro-consciousness has moral significance.

The institutional development of panpsychism as a research program continues to advance. Regular conferences, specialized publications, and dedicated research centers suggest that the position has achieved academic legitimacy. Whether this institutional success will translate into theoretical progress remains to be seen.

The future of panpsychism likely depends on several factors: the development of solutions to the combination problem, the generation of empirical research programs, the integration with neuroscientific findings, and the broader trajectory of consciousness research. As neuroscience continues to map the neural correlates of consciousness while leaving the hard problem unsolved, panpsychism may continue to attract serious philosophical attention as a radical but potentially necessary approach to understanding the nature of mind and reality.

Conclusion

Panpsychism represents one of philosophy’s most ambitious attempts to solve the deepest puzzles about consciousness and its place in nature. From its ancient origins in Greek philosophy through its systematic development in the modern period to its contemporary revival, panpsychism has consistently offered a compelling alternative to both materialist reductionism and dualist separation of mind and matter.

The position’s enduring appeal lies in its promise to preserve both the reality of consciousness and the unity of nature. By treating consciousness as a fundamental feature of reality rather than an emergent property of complex systems, panpsychism offers a naturalistic account of mind that avoids the explanatory gaps that plague physicalism and the interaction problems that challenge dualism.

Contemporary developments have demonstrated that panpsychism can be formulated as a sophisticated philosophical position that engages seriously with neuroscience, cognitive science, and empirical consciousness research. The work of figures like David Chalmers, Galen Strawson, Philip Goff, and Giulio Tononi has shown that panpsychist ideas can inform both philosophical analysis and scientific investigation.

However, significant challenges remain. The combination problem continues to pose serious difficulties for panpsychist theories, and the lack of clear empirical predictions raises questions about the position’s scientific viability. The relationship between micro-consciousness and macro-consciousness remains puzzling, and the boundaries of consciousness in a panpsychist universe remain unclear.

Perhaps most importantly, panpsychism’s ultimate success depends on its ability to generate productive research programs that advance our understanding of consciousness. Whether the position can move beyond philosophical speculation to inform empirical investigation will likely determine its long-term significance.

What seems clear is that panpsychism has successfully established itself as a serious option in contemporary philosophy of mind. Its revival reflects not just philosophical curiosity but a recognition that the hard problem of consciousness may require fundamentally new approaches to the nature of mind and reality. As neuroscience continues to reveal the neural correlates of consciousness while leaving its essential nature mysterious, panpsychism offers a radical yet rigorous framework for understanding what might be the most fundamental feature of our universe: the fact that there is something it is like to be.

The question is no longer whether panpsychism deserves serious consideration, but whether it can develop into a mature theory that successfully illuminates the nature of consciousness and its place in the natural world. The answer to this question will likely determine whether panpsychism represents a genuine breakthrough in our understanding of mind and reality or remains a philosophically interesting but ultimately unsuccessful approach to consciousness studies.

The continuing vitality of panpsychist research suggests that this ancient philosophical position may yet provide crucial insights into the deepest mysteries of consciousness and the nature of reality itself. In an age where the hard problem of consciousness seems increasingly intractable to purely physicalist approaches, panpsychism’s proposal that consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent may prove to be not just philosophically elegant but scientifically necessary.

Comprehensive Bibliography for Panpsychism Essay

Chicago Style Format (17th Edition)

Alter, Torin, and Yujin Nagasawa, eds. Consciousness in the Physical World: Perspectives on Russellian Monism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Blamauer, Michael, ed. The Mental as Fundamental: New Perspectives on Panpsychism. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2011.

Bruno, Giordano. Cause, Principle and Unity: and Essays on Magic. Translated by Robert de Lucca and Richard J. Blackwell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. World PantheismStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Bruno, Giordano. De immenso et innumerabilibus, seu De universo et mundis [On the Immeasurable and Innumerable, or On the Universe and Worlds]. Frankfurt am Main: Johannes Wechel, 1591. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy +3

Bruno, Giordano. De la causa, principio e uno [On Cause, Principle and Unity]. London, 1584. Encyclopedia.comWorld Pantheism

Bruno, Giordano. De monade, numero et figura [On the Monad, Number and Figure]. Frankfurt am Main: Johannes Wechel, 1591. WikipediaEncyclopedia.com

Bruno, Giordano. De triplici minimo et mensura [On the Threefold Minimum and Measure]. Frankfurt am Main: Johannes Wechel, 1591. WikipediaEncyclopedia.com

Brüntrup, Godehard, and Ludwig Jaskolla, eds. Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Chalmers, David J. “Consciousness and its Place in Nature.” In Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind, edited by Stephen Stich and Ted Warfield, 102-142. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Chalmers, David J. “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no. 3 (1995): 200-219. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy +5

Chalmers, David J. “Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism.” In Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Godehard Brüntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla, 19-47. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Springer

Chalmers, David J. “The Combination Problem for Panpsychism.” In Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Godehard Brüntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla, 179-214. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Springer

Chalmers, David J. The Character of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Routledge Textbooks +6

Chalmers, David J. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Routledge Textbooks +8

Chalmers, David J., and John R. Searle. “‘Consciousness and the Philosophers’: An Exchange.” New York Review of Books 44, no. 9 (May 15, 1997).

Diels, Hermann, and Walther Kranz. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker [The Fragments of the Pre-Socratics]. 6th ed. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1952. Wikipedia +2

Edwards, Paul. “Panpsychism.” In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 5, edited by Paul Edwards, 22-31. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Fechner, Gustav Theodor. Die Tagesansicht gegenüber der Nachtansicht [The Daylight View versus the Night View]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1879. Wikipedia

Fechner, Gustav Theodor. Nanna oder über das Seelenleben der Pflanzen [Nanna, or On the Soul Life of Plants]. 4th ed. Leipzig: Leopold Voß, 1908. First published 1848. Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyWikipedia

Fechner, Gustav Theodor. Religion of a Scientist: Selections from Gustav Theodor Fechner. Edited and translated by Walter Lowrie. New York: Pantheon Books, 1946. Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyWikipedia

Fechner, Gustav Theodor. Über die Seelenfrage [On the Soul Question]. Leipzig: C. F. Amelang, 1861. Wikipedia

Fechner, Gustav Theodor. Zend-Avesta oder über die Dinge des Himmels und des Jenseits [Zend-Avesta, or On the Things of Heaven and the Beyond]. 3rd ed. Edited by Kurd Laßwitz. Leipzig: Leopold Voß, 1906. First published 1851. WikipediaEncyclopedia Britannica

Freeman, Anthony, ed. Consciousness and Its Place in Nature: Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism? Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006.

Freeman, Kathleen. Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Complete Translation of the Fragments in Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957. WikipediaWikipedia

Goff, Philip. “Panpsychism.” In Blackwell Companion to Consciousness, 2nd ed., edited by Susan Schneider and Max Velmans. Oxford: Blackwell, 2017. Wikipedia

Goff, Philip. “Panpsychism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford University, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

Goff, Philip. “The Phenomenal-Bonding Solution to the Combination Problem.” In Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Godehard Brüntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla, 283-302. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Goff, Philip. Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Oxford University Press +9

Goff, Philip. Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. New York: Pantheon, 2019. Durham University +8

Goff, Philip. Why? The Purpose of the Universe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2024. Durham University +2

Goff, Philip, ed. Is Consciousness Everywhere? Essays on Panpsychism. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2022. Durham University +2

Goff, Philip, and Alex Moran, eds. “Is Consciousness Everywhere? Essays on Panpsychism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 28, nos. 9-10 (September/October 2021): 1-325. Imprint Academic

Goff, Philip, William E. Seager, and Sean Allen-Hermanson. “Panpsychism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford University, 2017. Revised 2022. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/ Imprint Academic +2

Granada, M.A., and D. Tessicini, eds. Giordano Bruno, De immenso. Letture critiche. Pisa-Roma: F. Serra editore, 2020.

Hartshorne, Charles. “Panpsychism.” In A History of Philosophical Systems, edited by Vergilius Ferm, 442-453. New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Hartshorne, Charles. “Physics and Psychics: The Place of Mind in Nature.” In Mind in Nature: Essays on the Interface of Science and Philosophy, edited by John B. Cobb Jr. and David Ray Griffin, 89-96. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1977. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Hartshorne, Charles. “The Rights of the Subhuman World.” Environmental Ethics 1, no. 1 (Spring 1979): 49-60. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Hartshorne, Charles. Beyond Humanism: Essays in the New Philosophy of Nature. New York: Willett, Clark & Company, 1937. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Hartshorne, Charles. Whitehead’s Philosophy: Selected Essays 1935-1970. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1972. Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

James, William. A Pluralistic Universe. In The Works of William James, vol. 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. First published 1909. Harvard University Press +11

James, William. Essays in Radical Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. First published 1912. Google Books +7

James, William. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1907. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophystanford

James, William. The Principles of Psychology. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. First published 1890. Amazon +2

James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1902. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophystanford

James, William. The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1897. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophystanford

Kirk, Geoffrey S., J.E. Raven, and M. Schofield. The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Google Books +3

Koch, Christof, Marcello Massimini, Melanie Boly, and Giulio Tononi. “Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Progress and Problems.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 17, no. 5 (May 2016): 307-321.

Kristeller, Paul Oskar. Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964. stanford

Laks, André, and Glenn W. Most, eds. and trans. Early Greek Philosophy. 9 vols. Loeb Classical Library 524-532. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016. Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyBryn Mawr Classical Review

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. G. W. Leibniz’s Monadology: An Edition for Students. Edited and translated by Nicholas Rescher. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Leibniz’s Monadology: A New Translation and Guide. Translated by Lloyd Strickland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014. Academia.edu

Long, A.A., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Lotze, Rudolf Hermann. Metaphysics. Translated by Bernard Bosanquet et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1887. Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyWikipedia

Lotze, Rudolf Hermann. Microcosmus: An Essay Concerning Man and His Relation to the World. Translated by Elizabeth Hamilton and E. E. Constance Jones. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1885. WikipediaAmazon

Lotze, Rudolf Hermann. Outlines of Aesthetics. Translated by George T. Ladd. Boston: Ginn, 1885. Wikipedia

Lotze, Rudolf Hermann. Outlines of Logic. Translated by George T. Ladd. Boston: Ginn, 1887. Wikipedia

Lotze, Rudolf Hermann. Outlines of Practical Philosophy. Translated by George T. Ladd. Boston: Ginn, 1885. Wikipedia

Lotze, Rudolf Hermann. Outlines of Psychology. Translated by George T. Ladd. Boston: Ginn, 1886. Wikipedia

Nagel, Thomas. “Panpsychism.” In Mortal Questions, 181-195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. WorldCat +9

Nagel, Thomas. “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” Philosophical Review 83, no. 4 (1974): 435-450. PhilPapers +3

Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Wikipedia +17

Nagel, Thomas. Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. WorldCat +6

Nagel, Thomas. Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament: Essays 2002-2008. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Wiley Online Library

Oizumi, Masafumi, Larissa Albantakis, and Giulio Tononi. “From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0.” PLoS Computational Biology 10, no. 5 (May 2014): e1003588. PubMed

Patrizi, Francesco. De spacio physico et mathematico. Edited by H. Vedrine. Paris: Librarie philosophique J. Vrin, 1996.

Patrizi, Francesco. Nova de universis philosophia [New Philosophy of the Universe]. Ferrara: Benedictus Mammarelli, 1591. Wikipedia +5

Patrizi, Francesco. Nova de universis philosophia: Materiali per un’edizione emendata. Edited by A.L. Puliafito Bleuel. Florence: Olschki, 1993. AbeBooks

Perry, Ralph Barton. The Thought and Character of William James. 2 vols. Boston: Little, Brown, 1935.

Roelofs, Luke. “Can We Sum Subjects? Evaluating Panpsychism’s Hard Problem.” In The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism, edited by William Seager, 245-258. London: Routledge, 2020.

Roelofs, Luke. “Phenomenal Blending and the Palette Problem.” Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 3, no. 1 (March 2014): 59-70.

Roelofs, Luke. “The Unity of Consciousness, Within Subjects and Between Subjects.” Philosophical Studies 173, no. 12 (December 2016): 3199-3221.

Roelofs, Luke. Combining Minds: How to Think About Composite Subjectivity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Roelofs, Luke, and Philip Goff. “In Defence of Phenomenal Sharing.” In The Phenomenology of Self-Awareness and Conscious Subjects, edited by Julien Bugnon, Martine Nida-Rümelin, and Donnchadh O’Conaill. London: Routledge, forthcoming.

Royce, Josiah. The Philosophy of Loyalty. New York: Macmillan, 1908. Wikipedia

Royce, Josiah. The Problem of Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1913. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

Royce, Josiah. The Religious Aspect of Philosophy: A Critique of the Bases of Conduct and of Faith. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1885. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Royce, Josiah. The Spirit of Modern Philosophy: An Essay in the Form of Lectures. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1892. Encyclopedia Britannica

Royce, Josiah. The World and the Individual: The Gifford Lectures Delivered Before the University of Aberdeen. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1899-1901. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Schopenhauer, Arthur. On the Will in Nature. Translated by E. F. J. Payne. New York: Hackett, 1992. First published 1836. Wikipedia

Schopenhauer, Arthur. Schopenhauer: ‘The World as Will and Representation’. Translated by Judith Norman, Alistair Welchman, and Christopher Janaway. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 2018. First published 1818, 1844. Wikipedia +2

Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation. Translated by E. F. J. Payne. 2 vols. New York: Dover Publications, 1969. First published 1818, 1844. Wikipedia +2

Seager, William E. “Consciousness, Information and Panpsychism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no. 3 (March 1995): 272-288. Ingenta Connect

Seager, William E. “Emergentist Panpsychism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 19, nos. 9-10 (2012): 19-39.

Seager, William E. “Panpsychist Infusion.” In Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Godehard Brüntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla, 229-248. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Seager, William E. Theories of Consciousness: An Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2016. Amazon

Seager, William E., ed. The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism. London: Routledge, 2020. RoutledgeTaylor & Francis

Searle, John R. “Can Information Theory Explain Consciousness?” New York Review of Books 60, no. 1 (January 10, 2013): 54-58. WikipediaNewappsblog

Searle, John R. “Reply to Koch and Tononi.” New York Review of Books 60, no. 4 (March 7, 2013). The New York Review of BooksInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Searle, John R. The Mystery of Consciousness. New York: New York Review Books, 1997. Goodreads

Shani, Itay. “Cosmopsychism and Non-Śankaran Traditions of Hindu Non-dualism: In Search of a Fertile Connection.” In Cross-Cultural Approaches to Consciousness: Mind, Nature and Ultimate Reality, edited by Itay Shani and Susanne Kathrin Beiweis, 45-68. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023. AcademiaPhilPeople

Shani, Itay. “Cosmopsychism, Coherence, and World-Affirming Monism.” The Monist 105, no. 1 (January 2022): 6-24. Academia

Shani, Itay. “Cosmopsychism: A Holistic Approach to the Metaphysics of Experience.” Philosophical Papers 44, no. 3 (November 2015): 389-437. PhilPapers +2

Shani, Itay, and Joachim Keppler. “Beyond Combination: How Cosmic Consciousness Grounds Ordinary Experience.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 4, no. 3 (Fall 2018): 390-410. PubMed Central

Sherburne, Donald W. A Key to Whitehead’s Process and Reality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. University of Chicago PressBooksRun

Skrbina, David F. “Panpsychism.” In The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by James Fieser and Bradley Dowden. https://iep.utm.edu/panpsych/

Spinoza, Benedict de. Spinoza: Ethics. Translated by Michael Silverthorne and Matthew J. Kisner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. First published 1677.

Spinoza, Benedict de. The Collected Works of Spinoza. Vol. 1. Translated by Edwin Curley. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. First published 1677. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Sprigge, T.L.S. “Panpsychism.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward Craig. London: Routledge, 1998. Routledge

Strawson, Galen. “Mind and being: the primacy of panpsychism.” In Panpsychism: Philosophical Essays, edited by G. Brüntrup and L. Jaskolla. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Strawson, Galen. “Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 13, no. 10-11 (2006): 3-31. Wikipedia +11

Strawson, Galen. Mental Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.

Strawson, Galen. Real Materialism and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Strawson, Galen, and Anthony Freeman. Consciousness and Its Place in Nature: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism. 2nd expanded ed. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2024. Amazon +5

Tononi, Giulio. “An Information Integration Theory of Consciousness.” BMC Neuroscience 5, no. 42 (November 2004): 1-22. Wikipedia +8

Tononi, Giulio. “Consciousness as Integrated Information: A Provisional Manifesto.” Biological Bulletin 215, no. 3 (December 2008): 216-242. PubMed +2

Tononi, Giulio. “Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness: An Updated Account.” Archives Italiennes de Biologie 150, no. 4 (December 2012): 293-329. PubMed

Tononi, Giulio, and Christof Koch. “Consciousness: Here, There and Everywhere?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370, no. 1668 (May 2015): 20140167. Routledge Textbooks +2

Tononi, Giulio, Melanie Boly, Marcello Massimini, and Christof Koch. “Integrated Information Theory: From Consciousness to Its Physical Substrate.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 17, no. 7 (July 2016): 450-461. Wiley Online Library

Velmans, Max, and Susan Schneider, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Macmillan, 1933. PhilPapers +12

Whitehead, Alfred North. Modes of Thought. New York: Macmillan, 1938. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy +8

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected edition. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978. First published 1929. Wikipedia +11