When I say that people aren't taking it seriously, I mean that I don't see physicists taking this seriously. Every single advancement we are making is based in the material world. There has been absolutely no evidence for panpsychism in modern science because many of the claims made by panpsychist thinkers of old have been disproven. It IS falsifiable. Whereas related concepts like pancognitivism and panexperientialism (which your first article seems to conflate with panpsychism) are unfalsifiable. The idea of panpsychism from a philosophical POV doesn't make much logical sense without integrating additional concepts like these. To quote Christopher Koch in your first article,
"Besides claiming that everything has both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects, it (panpsychism) has nothing constructive to say about the relationship between the two."
I find that article on Penrose to be massively misrepresentational of his and other physicists views on wave-particle duality and the quantum mind. I'd like to direct you here:
en.wikipedia.org
Third article is a total joke IMO and I couldn't finish it because I can't stand the way they frame their argument. Its very disingenous. I don't think panpsychism is an issue for philosophers to debate for this very reason.
Here is some good reading that criticizes Penrose's and Koch's views. It does a much better job than I ever could: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#QuanBrai
"There are quite a number of accounts discussing quantum theory in relation to consciousness that adopt basic ideas of quantum theory in a purely metaphorical manner. Quantum theoretical terms such as entanglement, superposition, collapse, complementarity, and others are used without specific reference to how they are defined precisely and how they are applicable to specific situations. For instance, conscious acts are just postulated to be interpretable somehow analogously to physical acts of measurement, or correlations in psychological systems are just postulated to be interpretable somehow analogously to physical entanglement. Such accounts may provide fascinating science fiction, and they may even be important to inspire nuclei of ideas to be worked out in detail. But unless such detailed work leads beyond vague metaphors and analogies, they do not yet represent scientific progress. "
I'm going to end my debate here because I don't think continuing would be very fruitful for either of us... and I have to work on that book lol.
"Besides claiming that everything has both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects, it (panpsychism) has nothing constructive to say about the relationship between the two."
I find that article on Penrose to be massively misrepresentational of his and other physicists views on wave-particle duality and the quantum mind. I'd like to direct you here:
Quantum mysticism - Wikipedia
Third article is a total joke IMO and I couldn't finish it because I can't stand the way they frame their argument. Its very disingenous. I don't think panpsychism is an issue for philosophers to debate for this very reason.
Here is some good reading that criticizes Penrose's and Koch's views. It does a much better job than I ever could: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#QuanBrai
"There are quite a number of accounts discussing quantum theory in relation to consciousness that adopt basic ideas of quantum theory in a purely metaphorical manner. Quantum theoretical terms such as entanglement, superposition, collapse, complementarity, and others are used without specific reference to how they are defined precisely and how they are applicable to specific situations. For instance, conscious acts are just postulated to be interpretable somehow analogously to physical acts of measurement, or correlations in psychological systems are just postulated to be interpretable somehow analogously to physical entanglement. Such accounts may provide fascinating science fiction, and they may even be important to inspire nuclei of ideas to be worked out in detail. But unless such detailed work leads beyond vague metaphors and analogies, they do not yet represent scientific progress. "
I'm going to end my debate here because I don't think continuing would be very fruitful for either of us... and I have to work on that book lol.