Panpsychists in science believe that nature is all there is but, they say, it includes consciousness as a fundamental fact of nature:
Scholar, lawyer, and writer Tam Hunt, affiliated with the University of California, is helping to popularize the idea in thinkmags.
Panpsychists are, generally speaking, naturalists. They believe that nature is all there is. But they address the seemingly intractable mind-body problem by seeing consciousness as a part of nature like gravity, present everywhere but perhaps most evident in humans. Probably, the reason their perspective is becoming more acceptable in science is that the semi-official alternative sounds less sane: Our minds are illusions that merely promote Darwinian survival.
Well, if our minds are illusions that merely promote Darwinian survival, what becomes of our science? Why should anyone believe it and what would believing it even mean? Faced with a choice, some would prefer to just say hello to the electron. That way, they can keep the idea that consciousness somehow relates to the true nature of our universe—without which, science is impossible. Hunt tells us that, in addition to Alfred North Whitehead, Freeman Dyson, J. B.S. Haldane, and David Bohm have been sympathetic to one or another point on the spectrum of panpsychist ideas.
News, “Integrated Information Theory: Electrons DO have a “rudimentary mind”” at Mind Matters News
It’s going to be very interesting to see whether panpsychism continues to advance without much pushback.
You may also enjoy:
Scientists: Plants are NOT conscious. No, but why do serious plant scientists even need to make that clear? What has happened?
Can machines be given consciousness? A prominent researcher in consciousness studies offers reasons for doubt.
and
No materialist theory of consciousness is plausible. All such theories either deny the very thing they are trying to explain, result in absurd scenarios, or end up requiring an immaterial intervention. (Eric Holloway)
You may also enjoy:
Scientists: Plants are NOT conscious. No, but why do serious plant scientists even need to make that clear? What has happened?
Can machines be given consciousness? A prominent researcher in consciousness studies offers reasons for doubt.
and
No materialist theory of consciousness is plausible. All such theories either deny the very thing they are trying to explain, result in absurd scenarios, or end up requiring an immaterial intervention. (Eric Holloway)