In his book Networkologies, Christopher Vitale muses, “For if the potential for mind is simply the result of the networking of neurons, essentially living wires, and these are themselves the result of the dynamic networking of matter and energy, which are themselves networks of quantum events, then this means that the potential for human experience, and all we have ever felt or even dreamed, lies not in what things are, but in how they are intertwined (Kindle edition, loc. 526).” He says, “… “being” hydrogen might be really, in a sense, a way of feeling the world “hydrogenly.” (ibid., loc. 536). He claims that such a view frees considerations of “life” or “consciousness” from the realm of the transecendent, placing it firmly in the immanent, “That which was formerly seen as transcendent of matter, such as life or consciousness, can therefore now be seen as immanent in matter, always already there, part of its potential, down to its very core. (ibid., loc. 573).”
Now, I find it uncontroversial that there is something that it is like for me to be me. Thomas Nagel famously points out that there is something that it is like to be a bat (see, e.g., here).
The question which arises here is this: is there some level of complexity (or networking, in Vitale’s terms) below which it ceases to be the case that there is something that it is like to be? Or is Vitale right, and it is the case that there is something that it is like to be anything and everything? In short, is panpsychism true or not?