In bovenstaande link kan je de eerste 8 pagina's van het boek doorlezen. Het is niet veel leeswerk maar wel interessant dus ik raad iedereen aan dit te doen.
Full recognition of the reality of experience, then, is the obligatory starting point for any remotely realistic version of physicalism. This is because it is the obligatory starting point for any remotely realistic (indeed any non-self-defeating) theory of what there is. It is the obligatory starting point for any theory that can legitimately claim to be 'naturalistic' because experience is itself the fundamental given natural fact; it is a very old point that there is nothing more certain than the existence of experience.
It follows that real physicalism can have nothing to do with physicSalism, the view - the faith - that the nature or essence of all concrete reality can in principle be fully captured in the terms of physics. Real physicalism cannot have anything to do with physicSalism unless it is supposed - obviously falsely - that the terms of physics can fully capture the nature or essence of experience. It is unfortunate that 'physicalism' is today standardly used to mean physicSalism because it obliges me to speak of 'real physicalism' when really I only mean 'physicalism' - realistic physicalism.
Een kritische recensie van het boek kan hier gelezen worden:
Panpsychism, at its simplest, is the belief that everything having a physical aspect also has a mental or conscious aspect. Panpsychism is regarded by many as either plain crazy, or else a direct route back to animism and superstition. The apparent claim that a hunk of rock has a conscious thinking mind is so easy to ridicule: why should anyone take such an idea seriously? Yet David Skrbina (2003; 2005) has convincingly demonstrated that panpsychism has been an underlying theme in Western philosophy over many centuries.
Whatever you think of his metaphysical conclusions, all three of his assumptions are pretty plausible, so it’s well worth asking what’s entailed if one agrees to them. Strawson is prepared to follow the trail to the very end. I, for one, think that’s how philosophy ought to be done. You can’t make metaphysics out of fudge. If you want an idea of just how hard 'the hard problem' is, and just how strange things can look when you face its hardness without flinching, this is the right book to read.
Kortom, hoe bizar het ook lijkt, als we onze kennis van de realiteit logisch op een rijtje zetten en op basis hiervan een conclusie moeten trekken, komen we bij panpsychisme uit.
Nog een paar links: