Electrons don’t think
This is possibly the biggest straw-man I&#x27;ve ever seen set up to represent panpsychism, and I feel like I&#x27;ve seen a lot.<p>This article is beyond nonsense. The author seems to define panpsychism as the idea that a &quot;conscious&quot; particle would somehow affect the number of particles produced in a collision. Where she gets that definition from, I can&#x27;t even begin to fathom.<p>Panpsychism isn&#x27;t &quot;crazy shit&quot; we &quot;tried long ago&quot; and we haven&#x27;t &quot;moved on&quot;. There&#x27;s currently zero solid scientific evidence for <i>any</i> theory of consciousness, and the idea of panpsychism -- that consciousness is grounded in the physical universe rather than being an emergent property or being something supernatural -- is just as valid as any other right now. Who knows, maybe it&#x27;s something like gravity that&#x27;s indetectable at the atomic scale but shows up under very particular configurations at larger scales.<p>I don&#x27;t know who this author is, but based on this post she comes across as <i>anything</i> but scientific.