Little argument for anyone who likes to care<br><br>Much of the problem here is due to definitions (😂). There is no possible argument against the existence of consciousness if and only of it is defined as 'what is': the bare fact of there being something happening, ostensibly 'to you,' at all. If you attempt to refute this, then you are simultaneously admiting to its truth in this way: that you are denying it at all is a function of recognizing that there is something to deny. That something is consciousness. <br>Now, given this, panpsychism is a nice, logical, follow up necessity. All things that have ever happened or will ever happen 'to you' has the quality of happening and existing in this state of 'what is' which is consciousness, or else it wouldn't happen 'to you.' Therfore, everything must always be contained in consciousness. <br>How do we deal with matter and other minds, then? Like death, you can't see into them. It's a closed door: you can't get anywhere outside of your consciousness, because that outside would not be emergent or occurent inside the structure of what is.  Experientialy, there is nothing but consciousness. And with as broad a definition that I am working with, there is also a strong argument for consciousness not merely being a container of phenomena, as in things happening 'inside of it', but the phenomena themselves, making all things, especially physical ones like mateials and peoples, consciousness.