Again there are numerous proposals for addressing the worry. Michael Lockwood (1993) suggests that the worry only arises when we are implicitly thinking of the brain in terms of classical physics, and that it evaporates when we explicitly adopt more recent scientific paradigms. Stoljar (2001) argues that the alleged problem arises from philosophers confusing the structure of consciousness itself with the structure of what is represented by consciousness. Nagasawa & Wager (2016) suggest that the problem goes away when we adopt cosmopsychism rather than micropsychism, because we no longer suppose that the structure of the macro-level brain is derived from its structure at the micro-level. Roelofs (2019) has argued, echoing certain views of Leibniz and Spinoza, that the structure of our conscious experience might outstrip our awareness of it. Goff (2017: ch. 8) argues that we do find structure in the brain isomorphic with the structure of consciousness, so long as we consider less basic kinds of brain structure; and hence the moral of the story is that there is much more consciousness present in the brain than we ordinarily suppose, corresponding both to more basic and to less basic brain structures (cf. Roelofs 2019; Chalmers 2016: 7.8).### 4.5 Other Objections to PanpsychismWhilst the combination problem focuses on the challenge of getting _our_ consciousness (and the consciousness of non-human animals) out of consciousness at the level of fundamental physics, Damian Aleksiev and Miri Albahari (independently) have focused on the challenge of getting _the physical world_ , or certain aspects of it, out of the facts about fundamental consciousness.[[25](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/notes.html#note-25)] In what she calls the ‘Inner-Outer Gap Problem’ Albahari (2022) worries that in standard versions of panpsychism, experiential properties ‘face the wrong way’ for this purpose. The experiential properties that are supposed to realise observer-independent properties, such as mass or charge, are accessible only to the subject undergoing them rather than to external observers. On this basis, Albahari argues that it is incoherent to suppose that facts about the ‘inner-facing’ experiential properties of micro-level subjects could somehow constitute the ‘outer-facing’ observer-independent objects. Aleksiev’s (2021) ‘Missing Entities Problem’ focuses on specific features of fundamental physical reality, according to popular views in theoretical physics. More specifically, Aleksiev doubts whether the following phenomena could be intelligibly grounded in facts about consciousness: spacetime, a high-dimensional quantum state, and timeless entities referred to in certain quantum gravity theories.A focus on the fact that neither space nor time are fundamental entities in many popular approaches to quantum gravity is also taken up by Susan Schneider (2018). There is a certain plausibility to the thesis that conscious experience is essentially temporal, which would seem to imply that consciousness cannot exist at the fundamental level of reality if time does not exist at the fundamental reality. Barry Dainton (forthcoming) also critiques panpsychism starting from the assumption that consciousness is essentially temporal, but this time focusing on the fact that for photons, as entities that travel at the speed of light, time does not pass. Einstein famously asked what it’d be like to ride on a beam of light; Dainton wonders what the panpsychist should think about what it’s like to be an electron.Zach Blaesi (2021) has constructed a moral parody argument against panpsychism. Some panpsychists argue that the kind of experience we pre-theoretically believe in must be grounded in experience at the fundamental level, on the basis that the traditional options of physicalism and dualism are inadequate. If we carry over this line of reasoning to meta-ethics, Blaesi thinks, we would argue that the kind of moral facts we pre-theoretically believe in, e.g. torturing children for fun is wrong, are grounded in facts about fundamental normative properties instantiated by micro-level entities, a kind of ‘panmoralism.’ Blaesi hopes his reader will reject this line of reasoning to the absurd position of panmoralist; by analogy, they ought to reject the analogous line of reasoning to panpsychism. However, Einar Duenger Bohn (2018) defends a form of ‘pannormism’ (there is normativity all the way down to the fundamental level of reality), which resembles the rather unusual form of panpsychism (2019) Bohn has also explored.## Bibliography * Albahari, Miri, 2020, “Beyond cosmopsychism and the great I am: How the world might be grounded in universal ‘advaitic’ consciousness”, in Seager 2020, 119–130. * Albahari, Miri, 2022, “Panpsychism and the Inner-Outer Gap Problem,” _The Monist_ , 105: 1. * Aleksiev, Damian, 2021, “Missing Entities: Has Panpsychism Lost the Physical World?” Goff & Moran 2021, 194–211. * Alter, Torin, & Coleman, Sam, 2021, “Russellian Monism and Mental Causation”, 55(2): 409–425. * Alter, Torin & Yujin Nagasawa (eds.), 2015, _Consciousness in the Physical World: Perspectives on Russellian Monism_ , New York: Oxford University Press.