Whitehead’s Process Theory (Panpsychism)
Although Process Theory is already classified under Materialism Theories/Relational, motivated by Griffin's “panexperiential physicalism,” I [RLK] am making the odd decision to classify it also here under Panpsychism, motivated by process philosopher Matthew Segall's bringing Alfred North Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism “into conversation with the recent panpsychist turn in analytic philosophy of mind.”

Alfred North Whitehead
Mathematician, Logician, Philosopher
Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) was an English mathematician, logician, and philosopher. He created the philosophical school known as process philosophy, which has been applied in a wide variety of disciplines, including ecology, theology, education, physics, biology, economics, and psychology.

Matthew D. Segall
Professor of Philosophy
Matthew David Segall is a transdisciplinary philosopher and Associate Professor in the Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program at California Institute of Integral Studies. His work bridges process-relational metaphysics with contemporary science and spirituality,
*This summary was verified by Matthew Segall on July 7, 2024.
Key Takeaways
Core Claim
Reality’s basic units are “drops of experience,” making experience universal but consciousness rare and emergent.
How It Works
Actual entities are processual events with primitive experiential subjectivity, combining past facts with future potentials.
Distinguishing Idea
Reframes the combination problem as “concrescence,” a creative synthesis rather than additive assembly of parts.
Whitehead’s Process Theory (Panpsychism)
Although Process Theory is already classified under Materialism Theories/Relational, motivated by Griffin's “panexperiential physicalism,” I [RLK] am making the odd decision to classify it also here under Panpsychism, motivated by process philosopher Matthew Segall's bringing Alfred North Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism “into conversation with the recent panpsychist turn in analytic philosophy of mind.” According to Segall, “Whitehead's unabashedly metaphysical project broadly aligns with recent critiques of reductive physicalism and the turn toward a conception of experience as basic to Nature.” Whitehead's panexperientialism, he says, attempts to take consciousness at face value, resisting inflationary accounts toward absolute idealism and deflationary accounts toward eliminative materialism (Segall, 2020).
Panexperientialism and Consciousness
Whitehead’s theory of consciousness is not panpsychism in the usual sense, but in rejecting the materialist idea that matter is inert, it is closely related, a distinctive variant often called panexperientialism. Whereas in classical panpsychism, every physical entity has conscious experience, in Whitehead’s Process Theory, every actual entity (or actual occasion) has experiential subjectivity, wherein experience and consciousness are not the same thing. Moreover, consciousness is rare, late, and derivative. “Consciousness presupposes experience, and not experience consciousness” (Whitehead, 1949). This means experience is universal, but consciousness is exceptional—emerging in complex organisms and in special situations involving novelty, contrast, or decision.
In panexperientialism, all actual occasions have an interior experiential aspect (prehension), but this not mean all occasions are self-aware or ‘conscious’ in the animal sense. Even subatomic events have some ‘sense’ or ‘feeling’ of the rest of the reality—but it is extremely primitive and decidedly non-conscious.
Here's how Whitehead describes these basic units of reality. “Actual entities—also termed actual occasions—are the final real things of which the world is made up. … They are drops of experience, complex and interdependent” (Whitehead, 1949). But in themselves, these ‘drops’ are not conscious.
Segall’s Process-Relational Interpretation
Segall distinguishes Whitehead's process-relational panexperientialism from the dominant substance-property variants of panpsychism, arguing that Whitehead's version avoids many of panpsychism's conceptual difficulties. To begin, “Whitehead's process-relational rendering doesn't claim that experience is a ‘primary attribute’ or ‘intrinsic property’ of matter. This is because in Whitehead's view, physics has moved beyond the substantialist view of matter, and talk of essential or accidental properties only made sense given such an [archaic] ontology … While there was an ‘essential distinction between [substantial] matter at an instant and the agitations of experience,’ with this conception of matter having been swept away, a door is opened to analogies between energetic activity and concrete experience.” Thus, “Experiences, like energy vectors, are intrinsically process-relational in that they always involve transition beyond themselves: They manifest in a ‘specious present’ [Whitehead] as a tension between the actualized facts of an inherited past and the potential forms of an anticipated future” (Segall, 2020).
While Segall has “the philosophical payoff of panpsychism” dissolving the hard problem of consciousness by “giving experience its proper place in Nature without undermining the scientific image of the universe.” Regarding substance-property panpsychism's combination problem, Segall says that Whitehead's process-relational approach “doesn't so much solve this problem as it does reframe the problem's presuppositions.” Whitehead does this not by “struggling to understand how abstract little bits of extended matter with mental intrinsic properties might combine to form bigger bits of minded matter,” but rather by starting “with a more concrete conception of energetic activity that is more easily analogized to agitations of experience. Neither ‘matter’ nor ‘mind’ is composed of simply located bits or states.”
Thus, “the ongoing composition of the cosmos is achieved not through the summation of tiny parts, nor through subtraction from some larger whole (as cosmopsychists would have it), but by a dipolar relational process with both a stability providing material pole and a novelty inducing mental pole.”
Concrescence and Emergent Panpsychism
According to Segall, “Whitehead is neither a micropsychist nor a cosmopsychist exclusively. He tries to have it both ways. There is a universal soul, a psyche of the cosmos, a primordial actuality or God of this world, and there are countless creatures creating in concert with it. Creativity transcends both God and finite actualities; it is the source of all co-evolving parts, wholes, bodies, and souls. Whitehead's account of process includes moments of combination and decombination, conjunction and disjunction. For Whitehead the combination problem becomes a logic of concrescence [i.e., ‘the production of novel togetherness’], a feature and not a bug, a way of thinking change as more than just the rearrangement of pre-existing parts or the fragmentation of a pre-existing whole but as genuine becoming, as an ‘emergent evolution’ or ‘creative advance’ where neither wholes nor parts pre-exist their relations … and in each act of creation the past is not destroyed but re-incarnated in the novel occasion … Concrescence is thus a cumulative process and not a merely additive one” (Segall, 2020).
Some call Whitehead's defense of a panpsychist philosophy the theory's most significant development in the 20th century. Whitehead radically reforms “our conception of the fundamental nature of the world, placing events (or items that are more event-like than thing-like) and the ongoing processes of their creation and extinction as the core feature of the world, rather than the traditional triad of matter, space and time. His panpsychism arises from the idea that the elementary events that make up the world (which he called occasions) partake of mentality in some—often extremely attenuated—sense, metaphorically expressed in terms of the mentalistic notions of creativity, spontaneity and perception” (Goff et al., 2022).
This makes Whitehead an emergentist rather than a constitutive panpsychist. “A given moment of conscious experience is not reducible to nor simply identical with its constituent parts.” It is “a creative repetition of the past rather than a combination of parts” (Segall, 2020).