> Sadly, there are very talented contemporary philosophers who believe in panpsychism.

What saddens you about this?

I think that panpsychism is one of a handful of views in contemporary philosophy that ought to be treated as a reductio, but have truly brilliant proponents who have convinced the profession to giving those positions more time than they are due.

To clarify, panpsychism is still a very small minority position.

Why do you think panpsychism "ought to be treated as a reductio"?

Why do you believe panpsychism deserves less time than it receives?

I'm not the OP, but I think the problems with panpsychism are that 1. it creates more problems than it solves (the combination problem and its sub-problems), 2. it's anti-parsimonious, 3. it follows a poor track record of philosophers assuming the mysterious thing in question is fundamental (i.e. ontologically basic) and being proven wrong. Don't know why people insist on making that same mistake.

Why sadly?

It’s always sad when people choose to believe in what they want, rather than what they have evidence for. I want to be loved by a god and live forever, but that doesn’t make me believe in any of that. I find it hard to ignore the pattern of people injecting the same old beliefs with new language into whatever narrowing gaps exist in current theories.

No one ever goes and actually finds the teapot, they just try to come up with more esoteric ways of defining it. I think that’s sad too.

Why is that sad though? Are you saddened by it? Are they unhappy via these beliefs? Or are you saddened by your inability to believe things you cannot directly evidence? This last point does seem like a poor way to live - for example, I have never really known how to evidence that the world is round, but I'm happy to take other people's word for it, apply it to what is useful to me, and to not worry about it.

I’m definitely saddened by my inability to believe in what no evidence exists to suggest is real, and I’m not being sarcastic. I’m sure that life would be less stressful if I could contextualize it in terms of spiritual meaning. What I was referring to in my comment is sadness at what I see a waste of talent going down well worn roads of thought, when there are new and exciting horizons in front of us. QM opens the possibility of a universe unlike anything our human expectations and intuition suggest, and produces testable theories. Science has been the most successful method of inquiry and testing in human history, and yet so many want to take only sips from its cup because they don’t like what it has to say about our lives, our significance, and place in the universe.

By the way, if you ever want to prove to yourself that the world is round, it’s quite easy. On a clear day, look to the horizon. Now climb the tallest tree or structure near you and look again. You can see further than before! Ergo the earth is spheroid and not flat.

>Science has been the most successful method of inquiry and testing in human history, and yet so many want to take only sips from its cup because they don’t like what it has to say about our lives, our significance, and place in the universe

What does "science" say about our lives and our place in the universe?

It says we’re a speck among a potentially infinite array of specks.

What does all of this have to do with panpsychism?

What does this have to do with panpsychism? The contents of your comment lead me to suspect you didn't even know what panpsychism was when you wrote it.

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?”

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.

> 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?