Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So—what are your thoughts on panpsychism? The idea that consciousness is ubiquitous and that everything in the universe possesses at least some minimal degree of consciousness?

Rick Rosner: No. No. No. No. That is one of the countless misconceptions about consciousness. You need a very specific—well, let us say, specialized—arrangement of matter for consciousness to emerge. It does not have to be the same structure in every instance, but it must be highly organized, dynamic, and capable of processing information in a complex, adaptive way. Consciousness, as we understand it, likely requires a substrate that supports recursive self-modelling, integrated information, or some computational analog thereof. A rock or a tree—at least the types of trees we see on Earth—do not have that arrangement. So, no, I do not buy into panpsychism.

Jacobsen: Is it, in a sense, mistaking the end product for the foundation? I mean, maybe. It seems like a kind of wild metaphysical shot in the dark.

Rosner: It is like starting with the valid premise, “Ordered matter is necessary for consciousness,” then misapplying it—looking at a rock and saying, “Well, it has crystal lattices, so it is ordered. Therefore, it might be conscious.” Yes, rocks and trees contain structure—crystalline, biological, or otherwise—but they lack the level of dynamical complexity, feedback loops, and information processing needed to generate even minimal consciousness. Panpsychism leaps that any ordered system—any structural complexity—is enough. That is just not true based on current neuroscientific and computational evidence.

Jacobsen: I do not think the reasoning in panpsychism typically gets that far. It just leaps straight into metaphysics.

Rosner: What kind of justifications have you heard in support of panpsychism?

Jacobsen: Usually, “Consciousness is fundamental and continuous throughout reality,” or “The mind is the intrinsic nature of matter.” It is a form of cosmopsychism or idealism repackaged with a modern spin. However, it is still an old idea.

It feels like a reversion to pre-Socratic metaphysics—like Thales or Anaximenes saying everything is alive or everything is mind. To me, panpsychism is a massive step backward. Moreover, the danger is—that it gives legitimacy to magical thinking. It opens the floodgates for people who think burning sage will cleanse negative energy or ward off demons.

Not that those people are necessarily the problem in themselves, but when that thinking gains public or academic traction—when it creeps into the cultural conversation around science and respectability—it undermines empiricism. It muddies the waters of scientific discourse. That is dangerous.

Rosner: I remember dating a fellow student in college who probably would have believed in something like that. Sweet, but into cosmic vibes and energy fields.

Jacobsen: That reminds me of what Richard Pryor did in one of his later stand-up specials. He talks about going on a date with a woman who is talking about the cosmos, and he is just nodding along, thinking, “Yeah, the cosmos, sure.” Then he says something like, “You will talk about anything when you want some pussy.” Only he mispronounces it—says “pissy.” Then corrects himself: “Pissy? Well, pissy, yes. I hope he got some soon, myself.”

Rosner: Carole is in her third semester of writing workshops with one of Richard Pryor’s ex-wives. That would be Rain Pryor’s mother. It is the total opposite of woo-woo stuff. She worked for NASA for decades—30, maybe 40 years. An engineer through and through. Someone like that—who has spent their life working on complex science problems at NASA—will probably not have much patience for panpsychism or metaphysical fluff.

Carole likes the class. She says it has been a meaningful experience—grounded and rigorous.

Jacobsen: Give me your fastest knockdown of panpsychism—go:

Rosner: Panpsychism is an ancient, overly simplistic guess about consciousness. It dates back at least 2,500 years to early Greek philosophy. However, modern neuroscience, cognitive science, and computational theory have shown that consciousness arises from specific, high-level structures and processes—not just from matter itself. Today, we build increasingly sophisticated analogs to consciousness using artificial neural networks. While no machine is fully conscious, they reveal the necessary components. We now have strong, though incomplete, working theories—like Global Workspace Theory, Integrated Information Theory, and Predictive Processing—that provide empirically testable models. We are far past the need for metaphysical speculation like panpsychism.

Photo by Zdeněk Macháček on Unsplash

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project; International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416); The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576); Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066); A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.