[Erlangolem]

Why do you think that? Is what I said inconsistent with a rejection of the “conscious rock” concept? Even if you did believe that, you’ve phrased your post in such a way that meaningful conversation is impossible, and any refutation would ring hollow. Very, “Did you beat your wife today?”

[skosch]

I agree with all of your posts above, and personally relate to both your sadness of being unable to believe and your sadness of seeing time wasted on fairy-tale nonsense.

That being said, the concept of panpsychism has merit insofar as it generalizes the idea that "consciousness may simply be what computation feels like from the inside". This, in my opinion, is an idea worth exploring – you don't need to take "conscious rock" woo-woo literally to wonder about substrate independence, different types of physicalism and emergence, etc. If the apparent absurdity of panpsychism can shock people into questioning our human gatekeeping tendencies around what consciousness is, then perhaps panpsychism is doing it's job fine.

[cgmg]

> Why do you think that?

Your comment implies philosophers think panpsychism is true because it brings them "comfort" (i.e. your example "I want to be loved by a god and live forever"), which is a ridiculous claim you haven't provided any evidence for. If you are going to accuse someone, especially a professional philosopher, of basing their views on pure wishful thinking, you better be damn sure you can back that up.

Your comment also claims panpsychism is "injecting the same old beliefs (?) with new language (?) into whatever narrowing gaps (?) exist in current theories". What is this even supposed to mean?