Abstract

The article deals with panpsychic conceptions in contemporary analytical philosophy of mind. According to some influential philosophers, panpsychism has theoretical resources for solving both the old riddle of R. Descartes about the causal relationship between the realms of the mental and the physical, and the hard problem of consciousness by D. Chalmers — "Why do some physical systems generate conscious experience?". In the second half of the twentieth century, there were heated discussions in analytical philosophy about whether certain aspects of conscious metal states, the phenomenal properties of experience, are irreducible to anything physical or functional. The strategy of contemporary supporters of panpsychic conceptions is to try to reasonably expand our ontology. They add to the microlevel a primitive analogue of the conscious experience possessed by such fundamental physical entities as elementary particles. Thus, phenomenal consciousness in its microform not only becomes a fundamental and irreducible element of reality, but also receives its causal relevance at the macro level. Nevertheless, all varieties of panpsychism face the combination problem: "How does the combination of the experience of fundamental physical entities lead to the emergence of consciousness?". The article assesses the plausibility of the main responses to different variations of the combination problem. It is shown that after revision, panpsychic conceptions lose their advantage over dualism and physicalism for various reasons. In the case of emergent and autonomous panpsychism, the concept of micro-experience becomes theoretically useless. S. Coleman's answer through the elimination of microsubjects leads to the rejection of panpsychism, and the idea of a phenomenal combination of P. Goff is burdened by the fact that we are, in principle, epistemically closed to its understanding. The author comes to the conclusion that the difficult problem of consciousness is not solvable due to the inevitability of its epistemological component, and not metaphysical or empirical. Until then, the question of the form is "does object X really have a phenomenal first-person perspective?" makes sense, we will somehow be inclined to believe that the hard problem of consciousness has not yet been solved.