1.Response to only  one of the discussion questions below .
2. must be(answer) related to lecture and reading.
3. At least 150 words long (you can write it in a word document first to check)
4. Relevant
5. Polite
6. Clear
7. Not a mere opinion. [For example if your contribution amounted to merely saying something like “I think Dualism is wrong” you will not have made a legitimate contribution, rather you need to say something of the form “I think Dualism is wrong because of reasons X and Y”.]
8. A genuine expression of your thoughts and understanding of the relevant ideas and issues, rather than merely parroting some text from one of the readings or lectures or some online source.

# Discussion Questions:

1) Do concerns about emergence provide us with a good reason to be a panpsychist? Would it be easier to explain the consciousness of complex animals like ourselves if we assumed that consciousness is present even in the most basic forms of matter?

2) Does Russellian panpsychism (or ‘Russellian Monism’ as it is also called) provide us a with good way of resolving the mind-body problem? Consider in relation to Chalmers’ idea (in the reading for this week) that Russellian panpsychism can avoid both the causal argument for materialism and the conceivability argument for dualism.

3) What is the combination problem for panpsychism? Should we view this problem as a mere challenge for the panpsychist to eventually address or as a devastating objection to their view?

4) Is panpsychism just too crazy to be taken seriously?