Mark Vernon explains the theory of panpsychism, which posits that every element of the universe has some level of consciousness

There is a line from William Blake that inspired the fantasy novels of Philip Pullman. The English poet and painter tells of one day talking with a fairy, and the fairy makes him a promise. Together, the sprite says, they will perceive that the world is awake and that “every particle of dust breathes forth its joy”. Seen aright, even humble dirt is alive.

The English author, Pullman, was captivated by the vision. The phrase led to the central role of Dust in his great fantasy trilogy, His Dark Materials. Much of the action of the novels is driven by the human effort to detect dust and understand how it is animate. And there’s philosophy behind Pullman and Blake’s interest in this lowly stuff. The philosophy is the theory known as panpsychism.

The name is from two Greek words: pan, meaning all, and psyche, meaning mind. Panpsychism or “all-mind” is, therefore, the proposal that reality is, at base, mind-like rather than made of inert physical matter. The notion is completely counter to a general assumption of modern science, which is that the universe functions like a vast machine of interacting components, including atoms and forces. Under this view, the cosmos doesn’t think or feel. Rather, it follows blind laws and random processes, which science works out and describes.

However, this materialism raises big problems, of which one of the biggest is how entities that clearly do think and feel, such as us, have evolved. The quandary is called the hard problem of consciousness, “hard” because there is no agreed solution to the problem, with many scientists and philosophers admitting they have little or no idea at all.

This is where panpsychism comes in, as it argues that mind, in some form or another, goes all the way down. Atoms and forces, for example, aren’t obeying laws but following inclinations, to behave in this way or that. When it comes to the level of brains, here there are complex enough arrangements of this mental substrate to produce thinking and feeling: the qualities we call consciousness. Hence the appeal of Blake’s vision: “Every particle of dust breathes forth its joy.”

One of the most lively advocates of panpsychism is the British philosopher, Philip Goff. In his latest book, Why? The Purpose of the Universe, he works out some of the implications of panpsychism. And it’s quite a journey.

Panpsychism might mean, he explains, that the universe recognises and responds to considerations of value, something no machine does unless designed that way. Things of beauty and life itself would be intended. We could be the end product of nearly 14 billion years not of blind evolution but deliberating intelligence, and maybe not the final end point to boot. Richer futures may await our far-distant children.

Our lives have meaning, Goff believes, because we are contributing to the great project of existence. The good we enjoy and the suffering we bear are significant. These experiences are not forgotten but are remembered by the cosmos, helping forge possibilities for tomorrow.

The conjecture is fascinating and, to my mind, a great step on from the stoical atheism that has recently dominated the cultural climate, at least in the Western world. This bleak worldview proposes that human dignity stems from the extent to which we can brave the machine-like meaningless that surrounds us. But it’s a mindset that looks increasingly outdated.

Yes, there is still a tendency among public intellectuals to assume that the cosmos is an enormous, whirring gadget and that our brains, too, are akin to advanced computers. But few physicists, if pressed, would agree that such metaphors are right. Physics since the revolutions of Albert Einstein no longer really fits into the mechanical model, given the existence of quantum fields and entangled particles, or gravity waves and time dilation. A new vocabulary to refresh our ideas about reality is needed.

Goff, for one, believes radical change is on the horizon. And maybe Blake can help inspire new imagery. Ditch “dark Satanic mills”. Welcome “Eternity’s sunrise”. Although isn’t this theory starting to look like belief in God, you might ask? It does seem a bit like pantheism, the idea that nature and God are one and the same thing.

Goff, for one, holds off from a traditional view of God, mostly because of what is called the problem of evil. Which is a problem: how can the suffering that comes with being conscious be reconciled with the intentions of a deity who can be called good, especially since suffering can be so apparently unnecessary and horrifically excessive?

I don’t know the answer to that, though it does seem to me that we wouldn’t recognise the dreadfulness of suffering, and object to it, if love and goodness weren’t fundamental qualities of existence, at least as we know it.

When it comes to the academic acceptance of panpsychism, most philosophers and scientists still reject it. Objections to mind being basic, not matter, include technical issues, such as how trillions of bits of mental dust might combine together to make a unified centre of awareness, such as you and me. Although the biggest challenge the theory faces is not technical but psychological. As Goff has put it, panpsychism is often treated as simply “crazy” or “obviously wrong”. Who is prepared to put their reputation on the line to defend it?

And yet, there is an energy to panpsychism that won’t easily be dissipated. For one thing, it attracts younger minds. I remember one weary academic protesting to me that too many undergraduates wanted to learn about it. Also, I suspect that many physicists secretly believe the cosmos they study is an expression of impressive, even superhuman intelligence. After all, the physics is smarter than them, which is why it is so fascinating to study.

For myself, I reckon panpsychism is a stepping-stone theory. Why wouldn’t it take a seemingly crazy proposal to shake us free of meaningless materialism, given that that idea has become so entrenched? No. We are aware because awareness is a feature of the universe that bore us. Is that thought so outlandish? Is it really one for the fairies?

Mark Vernon presents a new Thought for the Week on our regular online event “A Drink with the Idler“. Join us on Thursday 3 July at 6-7pm, when our guest Geoff Dyer will be telling Tom Hodgkinson about his new memoir Homework, about growing up in postwar Britain.

“A Drink with the Idler” is free to subscribers – otherwise £7.50.

Subscribers may comment. Please add your idle thoughts using the box below.

Idler No. 103, July 2025, is available in Waitrose, Waterstones, Smiths Travel outlets, select Smiths high street branches and around 100 indie stores. Click here for your nearest stockist.