Inconsistencies in Keith Frankish’s Case Against Panpsychism (Part I)

I’m not a Panpsychist, or, rather, I’m not a Panpsychist in any contemporary sense of the term. Nevertheless, Panpsychism has a rich and rigorous history. It deserves to be taken very seriously. With that being said, I stumbled across an article written by the Illusionist philosopher, Keith Frankish—an article that criticizes Panpsychism severely. I wanted to come to Panpsychism’s defense. I also wanted to examine several inconsistencies in Frankish’s own arguments against Panpsychism.    

“Panpsychism’s popularity stems from the fact that it promises to solve two deep problems simultaneously. The first is the famous “hard problem” of consciousness. How does the brain produce conscious experience? How can neurons firing give rise to experiences of color, sound, taste, pain and so on? In principle, scientists could map my brain processes in complete detail but, it seems, they could never detect my experiences themselves—the way colors look, pain feels and so on: the phenomenal properties of the brain states involved. Somehow, it seems, brain processes acquire a subjective aspect, which is invisible to science. How can we possibly explain this?” (Frankish, Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong, 1)

Keith Frankish insists that colors, sounds, tastes, and pains are real, and that our experiences of colors, sounds, tastes, and pains are also real (he simply qualifies this by saying that we mischaracterize our experiences (or objects of those experiences) as having properties which they don’t actually instantiate but only “seem” to). If we take the above passage at face value, then Frankish seems to be suggesting that my experience of a color, sound, taste, or pain is the way in which the color, sound, taste, or pain looks, sounds, tastes, or feels to me. Or, to simplify, “my-experience-of-a-color” is “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me,” “my-experience-of-a-pain” is “the-way-in-which-the-pain-feels-to-me,” and so on. 

Frankish goes on to say that the ways in which colors, sounds, tastes, and pains look, sound, taste, and feel to me are “phenomenal properties.” For example, he says, “the way colors look, pain feels and so on: the phenomenal properties of the brain states involved,” (Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong) “It seems obvious that phenomenal properties, such as the feel of pain,” (Panpsychism and the Depsychologization of Consciousness), etc. To Frankish, “phenomenal properties…seem completely inaccessible to science. They are wholly subjective features, which simply do not show up on the scientific radar.” (Panpsychism and the Depsychologization of Consciousness). Now, if “phenomenal properties” were real, and were instantiated in the world, then what would these “wholly subjective features” be properties of? Frankish states that these “phenomenal properties” (if they were indeed instantiated in the world) appear to be properties of the brain states involved in our experiences of colors, sounds, tastes, pains, and so on (Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong).

Confusion ensues. If “my-experience-of-a-color” is just “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me,” and “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me” is a “phenomenal property,” then we are faced with several inconsistencies.

(I) Frankish denies that “phenomenal properties” are “real” and instantiated in the world. Since Frankish holds that “my-experience-of-a-color” is just “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me” (cf. “my experiences themselves—the way colors look, pain feels and so on...” (Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong)), and that “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me” are “phenomenal properties” (cf. “the way colors look, pain feels and so on: the phenomenal properties…” (Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong)), it follows that Frankish is committed to the unreality of my experiences of colors, sounds, tastes, and pains. However, this conflicts with his insistence that “our lives are filled with conscious experiences—episodes of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and of having bodily sensations of various kinds” and that these experiences are indeed real (Cf. The Demystification of Consciousness). 

(II) Furthermore, Frankish, being an Identity Theorist, is committed to the view that “my-experience-of-a-color” is identical to a process in my brain. However, Frankish asserts that “phenomenal properties” (if they were instantiated in the world) would be properties of the brain states involved in our experiences of colors, sounds, tastes, pains, and so on. (cf. “the way colors look, pain feels and so on: the phenomenal properties of the brain states involved.” (Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong)) This is a manifest contradiction. Let me illustrate this. If “my-experience-of-a-color” is identical to “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me,” and “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me” is a “phenomenal property,” then it cannot be the case that the “phenomenal property” is a property of the brain processes involved in “my-experience-of-a-color.” Indeed, “my-experience-of-a-color” is ex hypothesi identical to that very brain process. A property (“phenomenal” or “non-phenomenal”) of the brain process cannot be identical to the brain process of which it is a property—an adjective cannot have itself as its own substantive!

A Question Concerning Bernard Lonergan’s “Questions for Intelligence” and “Questions for Reflection”

According to Bernard Lonergan, “questions fall into two main classes. There are “questions for reflection,” and they may be met by answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. There are “questions for intelligence,” and they may not be met by answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.” (Lonergan, Insight, 271-272) A “question for intelligence” asks ‘What?’, ‘Why?’, ‘How?’, and ‘What for?’. A “question for reflection” asks “whether our answers to the previous type of question are true or false, certain or only probable.” (Lonergan, Reality, Myth, Symbol, 1) With this distinction in mind, we can proceed by asking whether the following question is itself a “question for reflection” or a “question for intelligence”:

“Is the answer to this question, ‘No’?”

The above question is a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question, and so it appears to be a “question for reflection” and not a “question for intelligence.” Indeed, as Lonergan says, it is incoherent to answer a “question for intelligence” with a mere ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. By contrast, “questions for reflection” are those questions which are met by answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Indeed, “questions for reflection” can only be answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; they involve phrases like, “Is it so?” and “Is it probably so?”. However, if we declare the question, “Is the answer to this question, ‘No’?” to be a “question for reflection,” we find that it cannot be met by answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’—on pain of contradiction—and this contradicts our assertion that such a question is a “question for reflection.” We can illustrate this by examining the question in detail: 

“Is the answer to this question, ‘No’?”

If the answer to the question is ‘Yes’, then the answer to the question is ‘No’. But if the answer to the question is ‘No’, then the answer to the question is ‘Yes’. Since the question, “Is the answer to this question, ‘No’?”, cannot be met by ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ without contradiction, it follows that it is not a “question for reflection.” If it is objected that a question cannot refer to itself, we can reply that there are many questions that refer to themselves and are perfectly meaningful. Take, for example, the following question.

“Is the answer to this question, ‘Yes’?”

The above question is a “question for reflection” that not only references itself, but also can be answered without contradiction—it can be met by a simple ‘Yes’. We can also illustrate the same paradox that we outlined above by invoking two distinct questions rather than just one:

“Is the answer to the following question, ‘No’?”

“Is the answer to the preceding question, ‘Yes’?”

Let’s label the top question with the letter, A, and let’s label the bottom question with the letter, B. On the one hand, if the answer to A is ‘Yes’, then the answer to B must be ‘No’; however, if the answer to B is ‘No’, then the answer to A must be ‘No’—and this contradicts the original answer to A as being ‘Yes’. On the other hand, if the answer to A is ‘No’, then the answer to B must be ‘Yes’; however, if the answer to B is ‘Yes’, then the answer to A must be ‘Yes’—and this contradicts the original answer to A as being ‘No’. If it is objected that A and B are not “questions for reflection” at all since each has its meaning only in relation to the other, we can provide an instance of two more questions: 

“Is the answer to the following question, ‘Yes?”

“Is the answer to the preceding question, ‘Yes’?”

The above questions have their respective meanings only in relation to the other and can be answered without contradiction—both can be met by a simple ‘Yes’.

Reading Notes: October 16th, 2024

“Reason is to be examined, but how? It is to be rationally examined, to be known; this is, however, only possible by means of rational thought; it is impossible in any other way, and consequently a demand is made which cancels itself. If we are not to begin philosophical speculation without having attained rationally to a knowledge of reason, no beginning can be made at all, for in getting to know anything in the philosophical sense, we comprehend it rationally; we are, it seems, to give up attempting this, since the very thing we have to do is first of all to know reason. This is just the demand which was made by that Gascon who would not go into the water until he could swim. It is impossible to make any preliminary examination of rational activity without being rational.” (Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 53)

“I form ideas, I have perceptions, and here there is a certain definite content, as, for instance, this house, and so on. They are my perceptions, they present themselves to me. I could not, however, present them to myself if I did not grasp this particular content in myself, and if I had not posited it in a simple, ideal manner in myself. Ideality means that this definite external existence, these conditions of space, of time, and matter, this separateness of parts, is done away with in something higher; in that I know this external existence, these forms of it are not ideas which are mutually exclusive, but are comprehended, grasped together in me in a simple manner.” (Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 84)

“What was there before this time?—[in] the other of time (not another time, but eternity, the thought of time)? In this, the question [itself] is suspended (aufgehoben), since it refers to another time. But in this way, eternity itself is in time, it is a “before” of time. Thus it is itself a past, it was, was absolutely, is no longer. Time is the pure concept—the intuited (angeschaute) empty self in its movement, like space in its rest. Before there is a filled time, time is nothing. Its fulfilment is that which is actual, returned into itself out of empty time. Its view of itself is what time is—the nonobjective. But if we speak of [a time] “before” the world, of time without something to fill it, [we already have] the thought of time, thinking itself, reflected in itself. It is necessary to go beyond this time, every period – but into the thought of time. The former [i.e., speaking about what was “before” the world] is the bad infinity, that never arrives at the thought from which it goes forward.” (Hegel, The Philosophy of Spirit, Pt. III, C.)

“Earlier, Hegel establishes that a being is determinate in not being another. Thus, it appears to have its being for another. But Hegel goes on to contrast this sort of finite being, which is merely the negation of another, to one which possesses its determinate character in virtue of its internal self-differentiation. In other words, rather than being what it is merely in contrast to others, it is what it is in virtue of contrasts (or distinctions) within itself. Being-for-self is ‘the infinite determinacy that contains distinction within itself as sublated’….In being-for-self, Hegel is anticipating…the Concept, or concrete universal—or, more simply, the whole: a being which is absolute because it subsumes all finite determinations within itself, and thus does not derive its being from its opposition to anything outside itself.” (Magee, The Hegel Dictionary, 46-47)

Reading Notes: October 14th, 2024

“The animating life of Spirit brings us first into contact with the free infinity capable within its own external and determinate existence of remaining constant to the inner principle of unity, and, in the act of expression, still reflected back upon its ideal substance. To Spirit consequently is it alone permitted to impress the hall-mark of its infinity and free self-recurrence on its external expression, even though by such expression it enters the realm of narrow boundaries. At the same time we may observe that Spirit, too, is only free and infinite in so far as it truly apprehends its universality, and deliberately posits for itself and accepts those ends which are adequate to its own notion.” (Hegel, The Philosophy of Fine Art, Vol. I, 211)

“To the ordinary consciousness of everyday life the object of perception, no doubt, breaks away from mind, as though our thought stood in opposition to Nature, which receives from us a validity equal at least to the consciousness which perceives it. But in this way of looking at Nature and the conscious subject as two neighbors set over against one another in territories equally self-subsistent it is only the finite and limited mind, not that which it is as an infinite substance and in its notional truth, which is apprehended. Nature is not thus to be set over against absolute Mind, either as conjoint with a sphere of the Real of equal worth, or as an independent boundary thereto. Rather the aspect which Nature appears to hold in this respect is that which mind or spirit itself sets up, and of which it becomes the product as a Nature in which limit and boundary are themselves determining constituents. In fact, Mind in its absolute or infinite substance can only be apprehended as this free activity, which is manifested in self-development through differentiation. This object, this other, through which such differentiation proceeds, is regarded in such opposition as Nature, but as the object of intelligence it is quite as much indebted to Mind for the free gift and fulness of its own essential substance. We must therefore conceive Nature as herself containing in potency the absolute Idea. She is that Idea in apparent shape, which mind, in its synthetic power, posits as the object opposed to self. She is so far a product, a creation. The truth of Nature therefore is simply the determination by mind of its own substance, its ideality and power of determination, through a process which no doubt begins with a separation of itself into two factors which apparently negate each other, but which, by the very activity of such negation and separation, passes beyond the contradiction it implies to a unity which heals the fracture. Instead of finding ourselves opposed to a limit and a barrier we have a totality in which the parts which opposed each other are fused together by the free universality of mind. This ideality, in other words this infinite power of determination, is that which constitutes the profound notion of Mind’s subjectivity.” (Hegel, The Philosophy of Fine Art, Vol. I, 126-127)

“Mind grasps its finiteness as the negation of its own essential substance, and is aware of its infinity. And this essential truth of the finite mind is the absolute Mind or Spirit. In this form of self-consciousness mind is merely actualized as absolute negativity. The elements of finitude which it confronts is apprehended as such and annulled. In this, the highest sphere of its activity, mind becomes the object of volition. The Absolute itself becomes the object of mind. Spirit, as self-consciousness, differentiates itself as the knowing subject from the absolute Spirit as the object of knowledge. Mind in this latter sense, in contradistinction from mind which has not overcome the conditions of finite perception, may therefore be defined as a finite mind in possession of the principle of differentiation from its true object. In the higher and more speculative consideration of truth, however, it is the absolute mind itself, which, in order to unfold explicitly, the knowledge of itself, essentially becomes a principle of differentiation to itself, and thereby posits the finitude of mind, within which it becomes for itself absolute object of the knowledge of itself.” (Hegel, The Philosophy of Fine Art, Vol. I, 128-129)

“In the emotional life the Soul finds its true expression as Soul. For soul the mere juxtaposition of limbs have no real truth, and in the presence of its subjective ideality the purely spatial multiplicity of external configuration ceases to exist. Such a manifold, with its unique differentiations, its organic articulation of parts is no doubt presupposed; but when and in so far as the soul expresses itself through such in feeling the more inward unity ever-present to life asserts itself equally as the dissolution of all absolute independence between physical parts, which reveal now not merely their materia, but also that wave of animation which fuses all in their soul.” (Hegel, The Philosophy of Fine Art, Vol. I, 174-175)

“We must, indeed, think of [Experience] as having life in itself and therefore as differentiating itself from itself; but this differentiation is held within the limit of its unity, it is a separation of movements which are separated only as they are united.” (Caird, Metaphysic, 87)