Last edited December 10th, 2025

This site is now a blog for me to just write about stuff. Yes, it is supposed to look like that.

EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT NOW

12/10/2025 Wait, people can SEE in their MIND??

i'll write this later

12/1/2025 Alright, I'm still not done (TWO)

Forget how I explained Panpsychism. I was so wrong, and I have learned so much.

Thomas Nagel's description of consciousness is that there is something it is like to be a thing. There is something that it is like to be you, or me, or any living animal; they all have experience. Panpsychists believe that there is something it is like to be anything. The big mistake that people make, according to panpsychists, is assuming that consciousness emerges from complexity.

The argument follows somewhat like this: there are fundamental things that make up the universe, like electrons, quarks, mass, and so on. In the materialist view, something that is conscious is simply a compilation of these things set in a specific order, which creates experience. At some point, putting those atoms together in the right order creates the taste of a burger or something like that. To materialists, the taste of a burger is simply that compilation of stuff, and so the panpsychist asks, "Where does that experience come from?" What properties of this string of stuff create the conscious experience? Of course, consciousness cannot be so easily explained, and so the materialist essentially has to say, "I don't know." The panpsychist raises a new idea that might fix this problem. Consciousness is not emergent from this set of atomic particles, but is another fundamental part of the universe, like an electron or quark.

This provides a lot of answers to the materialist's problem. Since it is a fundamental part of the universe, all things are conscious. Electrons have an experience, even as simple as they are, they still experience something like, "I am here," and instantaneously experience again, "I am here." Not in the same way you or I would experience it—we are made up of a lot of experiences. As a human, there is something it is like to be hungry, tired, happy, sad, mindful, scared, and it goes beyond emotions. There is something it is like to taste a burger, there is something it is like to experience the color red. Consciousness itself does not emerge from this complexity; consciousness just becomes more complex along with complexity.

This does have a very significant problem. If everything is conscious and has some kind of experience, why is it that conscious experience is unified? In other words, electron #84728743 in my foot is not the one deciding to watch the sunset—I am the one making that decision. This problem has not been 'solved' in that it currently has no answer, but materialism has the same problem as this. As Alex O'Connor put it in his most recent episode of Within Reason, "You take a bunch of inanimate matter, and you put it together, and it combines into one conscious experience, but you've also got the problem of it combining into a totally different kind of thing." The different kind of thing he is probably talking about is the human or the brain. Why is it that those atoms combine into a conscious experience and ALSO a person? For panspsychism, the only problem is that this compilation of consciousness somehow creates a unified conscious experience.

Panpsychists and materialists both do not have an answer to these problems, but it is ultimately up to how you consider the plausibility of these things. Which one is more plausible to me? I've always been a materialist in my worldview, genuinely since I was an 11-year-old (Yes, I've been an edgy atheist type since 4th grade). Panpsychism, to me, offers a better explanation for the inconsistencies of consciousness than materialism does, like with psychedelic experiences and how the brain organizes consciousness in my previous post. It is possible that I'm mixing a lot of my recent reading and listening together; I am not a very organized person, and my train of thought is especially unorganized. You can probably tell that through my writing. Either way, I hope I've provided at least some interesting things to think about to at least one reader, if there are any (void experiences the void).

Please don't do psychedelics. But, if you do, Tell Me How It Went, I'd love to know. - BrD

11/19/2025 post ONE,

I have a lot of very contemplative questions about consciousness that I don't fully understand. Bear with me, this is going to be a loooooong rant.

A couple of weeks ago, I was listening to a conversation between famous atheist YouTuber Alex O'Connor and the author Annaka Harris. The topic was "Is Consciousness Fundamental?" and it was a somewhat surface-level dive into the theory of Panpsychism. I am not equipped to explain it to anyone, but the 'basic' idea is that Consciousness is not emergent from our surroundings, but is actually something fundamental to the universe. Everything is 'conscious' because everything is made up of particles, which are made up of consciousness. The only reason Human beings seem to be more conscious than a cat, for example, is that our brain is more well-equipped to organize consciousness (self-awareness). Most people agree that consciousness is some type of 'awareness' of the self, like how I am aware that I am typing this right now- and that I am kind of hungry- but the keyboard is likely not aware that it is being typed on. The keyboard has no way to organize its consciousness, but I do.

If all of that is confusing, that is definitely my fault. I could not easily explain this idea to you myself. I URGE you to listen to a good explanation of this topic. If it did make some sense and you are intrigued by this idea, read "Galileo's Error" by Philip Goff. I haven't finished the book yet, but from what I have read so far, it does an incredible job of describing many of the theories of consciousness and why they matter. Please do not take anything I say as gospel for this theory, I am literally a 20 year old who owns 5 gamecube controllers and 7 guitars, I know nothing about the universe.

Something that Annaka Harris brought up in that conversation- that has both horrified and intrigued me into this topic- is split-brain patients and what we know about their actions. In the brain, the left side is responsible for many of the actions of the right side of the body and vice versa. A patient with a split-brain has undergone a corpus callosotomy, a procedure where a doctor quite literally saws your brain in half and stitches you back up. Here's why this is important: those two sides of the brain can no longer communicate with one another; are they separate consciousnesses? The scientific community has done some fascinating testing on this subject.
If you take one of these patients, cover their right eye, and give them an instruction such that only their left eye can barely see it, they will follow that instruction. Then, you ask them why they did that action, and they give you a reason that has nothing to do with being given the instruction. They will literally make up a reason out of nowhere that makes logical sense, but is not part of the reason you gave them. Why? WE DO NOT KNOW. Not only that, but there are documented cases of "alien hand syndrome" in these split-brain patients. Patients who are not in control of their own hand to the point that they have to hold it down with their other hand to stop it from moving. THAT IS HORRIFYING. The theory I have heard about this is that there may be two consciousnesses inside of this individual. In general, they do not operate any differently than non-split-brain patients, so these oddities are very fascinating. It is possible that something inside of them is aware of its existence and that it has control, but it cannot express itself outwardly with language or writing, since those areas of the brain are on the other side. It can, however, draw pictures which is another way that we have proven these weird interactions. Completely scary.

In that conversation, Alex O'Connor also brought up anaesthesia and how it may not be working the way we think it is. If you agree that consciousness is essentially a form of awareness of the self, and that it is possible for you to be thinking or active inside your brain without being conscious (as in sleep, for example), then what do you think is happening when you are under anaesthesia? It is possible that, rather than experiencing absolutely none of the time between falling unconscious and waking up, you do experience it. You are just not aware of it. Isn't that awful? Imagine open heart surgery, feeling every inch of your pain in your body, but you are unable to remember any of it because you are not aware, your brain is not actively organizing your experience. Terrible.

OH, YOU THOUGHT I WAS DONE?
Notice something I mentioned in the last paragraph, sleep and brain activity. Have you ever heard someone describe their experience with psychedelics? The way it's described is like the brain is more active than it ever could be, right? WRONG. When you are on psychedelics, having an "out of body" experience where you are almost completely unaware of yourself as "the self", you have less brain activity. LESS brain activity when you are not aware of your consciousness, yet you are still experiencing something and can remember it. This is also true of the "flow state" you may find yourself in when focusing incredibly hard on a single task. When you are unaware of the self, but you are still conscious, you have reached a different plane of thought. This is what meditation is about, in a way, the state of mind you are in when you are deep in a meditative state, understands that the "self" is illusory, and is a distraction from reality. This is not the same as complete unawareness of the self, as you are still aware of its existence and its flaws, but it is very similar in that you are no longer held captive by its fear, anxiety, stress, and any negative (or even positive) emotions that you feel. You are simply existing, not as anything specific.

ANYWAYS wanna do psychedelics with me? /j - BrD