Imagine standing in a forest, silent and still. A breeze stirs the leaves, a bird calls out, and a vine twists subtly toward the light. To our eyes, it’s just biology at work—instincts, tropisms, chemical reactions. But what if it’s something more?

What if that vine wants the light?

It’s easy to dismiss such a thought as childish or naive. Modern science has trained us to be skeptical of anything that sounds like animism. Yet a growing number of serious scientists and philosophers are revisiting a radical idea—one that feels more at home in ancient temples than research labs: that consciousness may not begin with brains, but instead suffuses all of reality.

This idea, called panpsychism, proposes that even the tiniest particles of matter might have some intrinsic form of experience. Not thoughts or emotions, but the faintest glimmers of awareness—the feeling of what it’s like to be something. Far from being fringe metaphysics, this view is quietly making its way into mainstream scientific discussion, not because it feels good, but because it might solve some of the most stubborn mysteries in neuroscience and physics.

It’s a shift that could reshape our understanding of life, intelligence, and the universe itself—not by rejecting science, but by expanding its boundaries.

What If Consciousness Is Fundamental?

For centuries, consciousness has been treated as a human problem—an evolutionary side effect of complex brains, tangled neurons, and cerebral cortexes. Within this view, awareness is an emergent property: a flickering output of biological machinery, nothing more. But a persistent question continues to haunt both science and philosophy: how does matter, which appears lifeless and inert, produce experience?

This is what philosopher David Chalmers called the “hard problem” of consciousness. We can map neural activity, measure brain waves, and correlate regions with feelings, thoughts, and behaviors—but none of this explains why there is something it feels like to be alive. Why does the firing of neurons give rise to a rich inner life? How can purely physical interactions—electrons, synapses, neurotransmitters—produce the taste of coffee, the ache of longing, or the color red?

Materialist science has largely sidestepped this question, focusing on measurable outputs and cognitive functions. But the mystery remains unresolved. And for some, the impasse suggests a radical shift is needed—not in abandoning science, but in rethinking one of its core assumptions.

What if consciousness isn’t something that emerges from matter—but something already present in it?

This is the starting point of panpsychism: the idea that consciousness, in some form, is a fundamental aspect of reality, just like mass or charge. According to this view, even the simplest components of the universe—electrons, atoms, molecules—possess some intrinsic capacity for experience, however primitive. Not in the way we do, of course, but perhaps in the form of rudimentary sensations, tendencies, or inclinations.

At first glance, it may sound absurd. But the logic behind it is disarmingly straightforward. If you accept that consciousness is real—and if everything in the universe is made of the same fundamental “stuff”—then it becomes hard to pinpoint when, exactly, that stuff starts to feel. Does it begin in the human brain? In mammals? In cells? If we reject the idea that consciousness simply pops into existence at some arbitrary threshold of complexity, we’re left with another possibility: that it was always there, in some nascent form, waiting to be organized.

This doesn’t mean that rocks think or that atoms dream. Panpsychism is not a fairy tale. It simply suggests that the building blocks of reality are not entirely blind. They may carry the seeds of experience, however dim—seeds that, when arranged in complex ways, blossom into the vivid, self-aware minds we recognize in ourselves.

Ancient Intuitions and the Long History of Panpsychism

In ancient Greece, early thinkers didn’t draw strict boundaries between mind and matter. Thales of Miletus, one of the first recorded philosophers, speculated that magnets might possess a soul because they could move iron. To modern ears, that might sound metaphorical—but for Thales, it was a serious effort to explain observable phenomena in terms of a living universe.

Anaxagoras, a generation later, introduced the idea that “everything contains a portion of mind.” This was not idle poetry—it was a philosophical move toward explaining how order arises from chaos. If mind is embedded in the very particles of matter, then the capacity for organization and experience doesn’t need to be imposed from above. It emerges from within.

The Stoics expanded this view with the concept of logos—a rational, animating principle that flows through all things. For them, the universe was a single, coherent organism. Consciousness wasn’t a private human asset; it was part of a cosmic continuity. Even the stars were considered ensouled.

This line of thought reemerged powerfully in Plotinus, who described the universe as emanating from a singular source of consciousness—a One that gives rise to all things. His ideas resonated centuries later during the Renaissance, most notably through Giordano Bruno, who envisioned a boundless universe filled with countless worlds, each alive with its own internal spark. Bruno’s assertion that every part of the cosmos possesses soul was seen not just as heretical—it was dangerous enough to get him burned at the stake in 1600.

Outside the Western canon, similar intuitions have shaped entire worldviews. In Hindu philosophy, consciousness (chit) is not a property of certain beings but a fundamental aspect of Brahman, the underlying reality. In Shinto, natural elements like rivers, trees, and rocks are imbued with kami—spiritual essences that demand respect. Among Indigenous cultures, the belief that animals, plants, and even landscapes possess agency and awareness is not metaphorical—it is practical knowledge rooted in lived experience.

These traditions did not use the term “consciousness” as we do today. But whether through the language of spirit, soul, or awareness, they described a cosmos that was profoundly alive—aware not in human terms, but in its own way.

And yet, this worldview began to fracture during the Scientific Revolution, when figures like René Descartes decisively split mind from matter. In his dualistic framework, animals were mechanistic automatons, plants mere objects, and humans the sole bearers of subjective experience. Matter was stripped of vitality, animated only by external forces. Mind was relocated to a separate, immaterial realm—untouchable by science.

Still, not everyone accepted this division. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz responded with the concept of monads—indivisible centers of perception that reflect the universe from their own unique perspectives. These weren’t particles of matter, but metaphysical atoms of awareness. For Leibniz, the entire universe was a harmony of sentient points.

The 19th and early 20th centuries saw further revivals. Gustav Fechner, a founder of experimental psychology, argued that even planets and stars might possess a kind of consciousness. William James entertained the idea that consciousness is not confined to brains but might be a fundamental aspect of nature. Alfred North Whitehead, blending mathematics with metaphysics, proposed that reality is composed of events and experiences, not inert objects. In his “process philosophy,” every entity, from an electron to a person, has an inner aspect—its own version of feeling.

How Modern Theories Are Reopening the Case

One of the main forces behind this shift is the growing recognition that neuroscience, for all its advances, has yet to explain the most basic fact of our existence: the feeling of being. We know a great deal about neural correlates—what brain states accompany particular experiences—but almost nothing about how or why those experiences arise. The tools are precise, but the theory remains elusive. And in this gap, ancient questions resurface with new urgency.

Enter Integrated Information Theory (IIT), developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi. Rather than starting with the brain and trying to reverse-engineer experience, IIT begins with consciousness itself—defined simply as what it’s like to be something. The theory proposes that consciousness corresponds to the amount of integrated information generated by a system. This is quantified by a value called Φ (phi). The higher the Φ, the richer the system’s experience.

What makes IIT revolutionary is that it doesn’t restrict consciousness to living organisms or brains. It applies the same principles to any system, biological or not. If a system is sufficiently integrated—meaning its parts affect each other in irreducible ways—it has some degree of consciousness. That might include a human brain. But it might also include a plant, a slime mold, or even, in principle, a block of silicon.

IIT isn’t just philosophical speculation. It generates testable predictions, some of which are already being explored in labs. For example, researchers have found that during deep anesthesia, the brain’s ability to integrate information sharply decreases—corresponding with the loss of conscious experience. In other words, when Φ drops, so does awareness. These findings offer empirical support for the idea that consciousness correlates with informational complexity, not necessarily with neural anatomy.

The implications are far-reaching. A simple organism like slime mold, which has no nervous system at all, can solve mazes, adapt its behavior, and learn from experience. Plants, long dismissed as passive automatons, are now known to communicate via chemical signals, remember previous events, and even respond to anesthesia in ways eerily similar to animals. These facts don’t prove they are conscious—but they do challenge the assumption that a brain is required for meaningful experience.

Biologist Michael Levin has been at the forefront of this exploration. His work with planarian flatworms shows that memories can persist even after decapitation and brain regeneration, suggesting that cognition—and perhaps some form of awareness—might be distributed throughout the body. Levin prefers the language of “cognition” to “consciousness,” but he acknowledges that the line between them may be thinner than we think. “I do think consciousness is very ubiquitous and primary,” he notes, “and I think it does go along with cognition.”

Other researchers are pushing even further. Quantum theories of consciousness, such as the Orch-OR model proposed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, suggest that quantum events within neuronal microtubules might give rise to discrete moments of awareness. Though controversial and still speculative, the theory gains intrigue from discoveries of quantum coherence in biological systems like photosynthesis. If life can exploit quantum mechanics for energy, might it also do so for mind?

This meeting point—between cutting-edge science and ancient metaphysics—is not a return to superstition, but a convergence of insight. The hard problem of consciousness has forced many scientists to revisit ideas once exiled to the margins. And in doing so, they’ve discovered that panpsychism may offer not just a poetic worldview, but a viable framework for explaining how consciousness could arise in a universe made entirely of physical matter.

What distinguishes this new wave of inquiry is not its mysticism, but its methodological seriousness. Theories like IIT don’t claim to know what it’s like to be a bacterium or an electron. But they do offer a language—and a logic—for exploring that possibility. In doing so, they dissolve the rigid boundaries between “animate” and “inanimate,” “thinking” and “non-thinking,” replacing them with a continuum of experience. Consciousness, in this view, is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, but a gradient woven into the structure of existence itself.

The Combination Problem and the Limits of the Panpsychic View

If consciousness is truly baked into the fabric of reality—if even electrons or atoms have the faintest shimmer of awareness—then a larger question looms: how do these micro-experiences combine into the rich, unified consciousness that humans and other animals seem to possess?

This is known as the combination problem, and it is arguably the most serious challenge to panpsychism. It’s one thing to say that a particle might have a minuscule sliver of experience. It’s quite another to explain how billions of these slivers come together to form something as cohesive and self-aware as a human mind. As philosopher William James once put it, twelve men each thinking one word do not make a person thinking a full sentence.

Panpsychists acknowledge this difficulty. Most agree that while individual particles might harbor primitive experiential qualities, those experiences do not necessarily “add up” just by proximity. A table, for instance, is made of atoms, and if those atoms have micro-consciousness, why doesn’t the table itself have a mind? The standard reply is that mere aggregation isn’t enough—there must also be integration and coordination among parts, forming a unified whole with causal power. Without this, consciousness remains scattered, never coalescing into something singular.

This is where Integrated Information Theory (IIT) offers an advantage. IIT resolves the combination problem by introducing the concept of irreducible integration. According to the theory, consciousness only exists in systems that produce a maximum of integrated information. If smaller parts generate more Φ (phi) on their own than as a group, they remain individual consciousnesses. But if a larger structure yields the highest Φ, then a new, unified consciousness emerges—and the micro-conscious parts, in a sense, dissolve into it.

In this way, not everything that is made of conscious parts becomes conscious as a whole. A table, though composed of atoms, lacks the dynamic causal interactions to form a single, integrated system. But a brain—or even a sufficiently coordinated group of cells—might. IIT doesn’t just describe consciousness as a spectrum, but as something that arises at specific peaks of integration, with clear boundaries between what counts as a subject of experience and what doesn’t.

Still, critics argue that this solution remains incomplete. While IIT provides a mathematical model for when consciousness arises, it doesn’t explain how qualitatively different micro-experiences fuse into the unified field of awareness we know intimately. What is it like to be a collection of quarks or electrons that have “merged” into a self? No theory—panpsychism or otherwise—has yet offered a satisfying answer.

Some philosophers, like Galen Strawson, argue that the combination problem is only difficult if we assume that consciousness must be explained from the outside, using third-person language. But perhaps consciousness, being the one thing we know from within, requires a different kind of explanation—not mechanistic but intrinsic. From this view, the very demand to “show how the parts combine” may be a category error, like asking what color the number seven is.

Others take a more cautious approach. Rather than leaping to universal consciousness, they propose biopsychism, the idea that only living systems—and not all matter—are conscious. This sidesteps the awkwardness of conscious atoms or subatomic particles, while still granting that mind might emerge much earlier and more broadly than previously thought, possibly in the first stirrings of life. But this view risks reintroducing the problem panpsychism was meant to solve: the sudden leap from non-conscious to conscious systems.

Wherever one lands, the combination problem marks the philosophical frontier of panpsychism. It reveals not just the limits of the theory, but also the depth of the mystery we’re confronting. As our understanding of information, biology, and matter deepens, so too must our models of consciousness evolve—models that are not just descriptive, but capable of honoring the strange fact that subjective experience exists at all.

From Atoms to Animals to AI

If consciousness is not a binary switch—on or off—but a continuum, then the universe may be teeming with varying degrees of awareness. From this perspective, the glow of consciousness doesn’t suddenly burst into existence at some threshold of neural complexity. Instead, it intensifies gradually as systems become more integrated, more complex, and more self-organizing.

This is one of the most compelling aspects of panpsychism and related frameworks like Integrated Information Theory (IIT): the idea that experience scales. A bacterium may have a flicker of awareness—a basic “what it’s like” to encounter food or toxins. A bee might experience a richer mental life, navigating mazes, recognizing faces, and dancing complex directions to its hive-mates. A human mind, with its billions of interconnected neurons, sustains a vast inner world of memory, desire, imagination, and self-reflection.

This spectrum view aligns with what evolution tells us: that life and mind developed incrementally, not through sudden leaps but through a deepening of capabilities over time. There is no clear dividing line where “non-conscious” becomes “conscious.” Instead, there’s a progression—a layering of complexity that mirrors the layering of experience itself.

The implications are startling.

Consider plants. Long seen as passive life forms, they have been shown to communicate through chemical signals, respond to anesthesia, and even learn from repeated experience. The Mimosa pudica plant, for example, can remember that a repeated drop causes no harm—and stops closing its leaves accordingly. Some scientists suggest that these behaviors reflect a form of basal cognition, or even a minimal consciousness. If they are right, our current models of mind—centered on brains—may be far too narrow.

Even more provocative are the single-celled organisms like slime molds. Despite having no nervous system, they can navigate mazes, avoid obstacles, and even “decide” between competing food sources. In one famous experiment, a slime mold recreated the Tokyo subway system by mapping the shortest paths between food sources. Another learned to tolerate caffeine after repeated exposure. These aren’t reflexes—they’re evidence of adaptive learning without neurons.

For some researchers, this points toward bioelectricity—the electrical signaling between cells—as a candidate for cognition itself. Biologist Michael Levin has shown that information can be stored and shared in these patterns of electrical activity, allowing even decapitated planarian worms to “remember” behaviors they learned before losing their brains. Levin argues that cognition, and possibly consciousness, precedes the emergence of nervous systems—and may not depend on them at all.

So if even brains aren’t necessary, could machines be conscious?

That question is no longer hypothetical. Advances in artificial intelligence have created systems that can learn, adapt, and even carry on eerily lifelike conversations. But does that mean they’re aware?

From the panpsychist view, consciousness doesn’t depend on biology—it depends on structure. If a silicon-based system becomes sufficiently integrated—if its parts influence each other in a unified, irreducible way—it may begin to generate experience. Under IIT, this would be measurable: if a machine’s Φ value is greater than zero, it has some degree of consciousness. The number might be low—far lower than in biological systems—but nonzero nonetheless.

This raises both philosophical and ethical questions. How would we know if an AI system is conscious? And if it is, what do we owe it?

The broader implication is that consciousness might not be rare, confined to a few complex species. It may be as widespread as matter itself, manifesting in varying forms across life and possibly even non-life. At one end of the spectrum, the electron repels another electron—perhaps a whisper of what it means to “not want” something. At the other end, a human reflects on loss, longing, or love.

A More Enchanted Cosmos

If consciousness pervades the natural world—not as an all-or-nothing miracle but as a spectrum woven into matter—then our ethical and spiritual assumptions require reexamination. This view doesn’t just challenge the boundaries of neuroscience or philosophy. It reshapes our sense of relationship: to animals, to plants, to machines, to the very ground beneath our feet.

For some, the idea that everything is to some degree conscious evokes wonder. For others, it raises dread. If even the smallest beings feel—however faintly—what does that mean for how we eat, build, harvest, or dispose? Do we live in a world full of silent suffering, or shared sentience? The truth is likely more nuanced.

Panpsychism doesn’t argue that all things are equally conscious. A bacterium is not a bat. A rock is not a rainforest. Different entities exhibit different degrees and types of awareness, and so our moral obligations to them will differ too. As philosopher Joanna Leidenhag points out, the moral takeaway isn’t paralysis—it’s sensitivity. “It has made me a more committed vegetarian,” she says, “because it’s made me more aware of other creatures’ consciousness. But I don’t think it makes it impossible to live.”

This idea resonates with something older than philosophy: the spiritual intuition that the world is alive—not metaphorically, but actually. Many Indigenous traditions have never drawn a hard line between human and nonhuman life. Rivers, trees, animals, even stones are seen as relational beings, not inert resources. Animism and panpsychism are not identical, but they echo the same core message: we are not alone in our awareness.

From this perspective, compassion is no longer limited to those who look or think like us. It becomes a scalable ethic, guided not by sentimental idealism but by a deepened recognition of connection. As biologist Michael Levin puts it, “Be nice to goal-directed systems.” It’s a refreshingly practical take on the Golden Rule: treat other systems with care in proportion to their ability to feel, strive, and respond.

That includes animals. Increasingly, science is affirming what many have long intuited: that dogs grieve, crows plan, octopuses play, and bees make decisions. It also includes plants that learn and warn each other of danger. It might one day include AI systems, if they achieve sufficient integration to support consciousness—something panpsychism doesn’t rule out.

And perhaps it also includes the Earth itself, not as a metaphorical “Mother” but as a living system—a Whole in which we are embedded, not observers standing apart.

Spiritually, this worldview doesn’t require abandoning science. It invites an expansion of it. It suggests that consciousness is not a latecomer in the universe, but a primordial quality—a silent undercurrent running through atoms and galaxies alike. We are not anomalies in a lifeless cosmos; we are complex expressions of a universal capacity to sense, to respond, to be.

The shift is subtle but profound. It doesn’t require that we believe chairs have souls or that electrons dream. It asks us to consider a gentler, more interconnected view of reality—one in which we scale our attention and care to the degrees of awareness around us. Not out of guilt or sentiment, but out of coherence with a truth we’re only beginning to rediscover.

In a world re-enchanted by science itself, perhaps consciousness is not the exception—it is the signature of existence.

Loading...