Reading Iain McGilchrist’s recent “The Matter with Things”, led me into a review of panpsychism and its fascinating history. It is untestable. It is anti-materialistic. It’s a metaphysic that I will make sense of only if I understand why people believe it.

Why do so many otherwise scientific thinkers seem drawn to panpsychism? Some who believe would understand why they hold their beliefs, and some of these have recorded their reflections and made them available to us. I try to use reason to shape their reflections into something I might apprehend, but the shape dissolves as I try to form it. Maybe I discern enough to make some reasonable guesses.

I note that, among the apparent psychological needs, a need for closure looks to be very important. (Look into the neurobiology and evolutionary psychology of belief formation.) A common assumption about meanings may also be relevant. Those who will not be responsible for making their meanings, will look elsewhere for them. And to sense an underlying purpose to deeply disturbing events will console. Panpsychism does not have the “baggage” of traditional religions. (No need to elaborate.) Many throughout history who have rejected religious dogma (religious authority), like German freethinkers, have found a non-doctrinal panpsychism to be consistent and emotionally satisfying.

From my reading of the psychology of religious belief, I understand that spiritual beliefs help many people cope with anxiety and depression. Psychological projection might also be involved. But instead of attributing negative aspects of self to others, positive abilities (like empathy and compassion) are attributed to something beyond self, to something larger and other. I will continue my search for answers and look forward to a better understanding of the belief through the investigations of mind scientists.

Finally, I’m guessing that panpsychists are happy to be in agreement with many admired thinkers, past and present, and that being in such company will not inspire them to question their beliefs.

It’s “building qualitative experience out of qualitative experience” - Andy Clark’s nicely reasoned critique has helped my understanding: