In philosophy of mind, there is a problem called the mind/body problem, also known as the Hard Problem. The reason it’s called that, is because no one has been able to solve it, and it may be unsolveable.
The issue is this one: if we are compromised solely of physical material, what is the precise interplay between the “stuff” of consciousness, and that physical material?
We understand that processes in the brain provoke changes in awareness - we know that electric signals in the brain cause experiences, that damage to the brain causes various neuropathies, but that only explains various relationships between the brain and our consciousness. It still does not explain what consciousness actually is.
So, how can we attempt to do that?
In the material world, if we want to explain what a rock actually is, we usually dissect its elements so that we have a full breakdown of its molecular, atomic, energetic properties. We seek to divide it into its constituent parts. That, with consciousness, is impossible. Where, amongst our brain process and our brain matter, is that single, indivisible, point of awareness. In short, where are you?
One explanation that I could buy into, is that consciousness is actually present, to varying degrees, in all things - humans, animals, fish, insects, trees, plants, bacteria, viruses, molecular structures, atoms, particles.
This idea is pansychism, and I think many of us would agree we’ve had some experience of this feeling of awareness being everywhere on psychedelics. It’s an idea that has some traction in contemporary philosophy. I’d love to know people’s thoughts!
I think you MAY be confusing panpsychism partially with animism or pancognitivism? I cannot entirely tell with this post.
I study 17th century literature (working on a book right now!) and panpsychism was huge back then among some of the most progressive of scientific thinkers. (not that "science" was a thing back then).
It is not about the inanimate having 'consciousness' necessarily, though I know it is often described this way. I think it is easy to attribute human-like qualities to inanimate objects when you think of it in this way. I much prefer to say that panpsychism is the belief that the universe (though not necessarily all of it) has 'mind-like quality'.
The idea back in the 17th century was that everything was comprised of monads, the smallest unit in the universe. These monads were parts, or grouped to form parts of the universe, and these parts 'communicated' or 'had agreements' with other parts. This was not 'awareness' or 'consciousness' necessarily as many believed these agreements happened at the behest of a creator (see: God) and could, for the most part, be treated as (mostly) static laws of the universe.
For instance, the 'parts' of water agreeing to flow a certain way. They are not necessarily talking, thinking, or aware of this, they are just doing it because that is what they do. You have to understand that the idea of Panpsychism came about in a time when we did not know about electricity/energy, and had no concept of chemistry. People recognized there had to be SOME system by which the universe operated, since the rules seemed to be unchanging.
In essence, with this system, the universe can be treated as one big mind with lots of different parts working simultaneously, and in 'agreement' to stick to the rules set out by God. This is very different from animism where parts of the universe have more human-like qualities, such as souls, or emotions, or kingdoms, etc. Panpsychism is almost mechanical.
Interestingly, many believed in an increased level of mentality for things which moved, which they called self-moving matter. Like humans, a flowing river, animals, bugs, wind, fire, etc. This is because they had 'more agreements' to work a certain way. The more parts, and the more complex they are, the more 'consciousness' they had. Humans were considered the ultimate conscious creature (as in, a creation of a supreme being) as they were seen as more complex and more independent than pretty much everything else. After all, you don't see geese debating philosophy or building castles, and you don't see wind wagging its tail all happy when you walk in the door, like you would with a dog.
The way I see it, panpsychism is much more of a precursor to our modern understanding of science. It doesn't really hold up to our modern understanding of science. While someone may believe that, say, water is conscious, it's hard to argue that water is deciding, consciously, to act in certain ways, because we understand the properties of physics that make it act as it does, and it seems unlikely that there is any decision making involved.
Remember where I said "(mostly) static laws of the universe." This was how people used to explain what they couldn't understand. Sometimes, self-moving matter would break the rules and create things like monsters (like, scary ones that live in the woods) or miracles or other strange phenomena that didn't fit into their understood rulebook of the universe.
But now we can explain a lot of that stuff. We know that things like animals being mutated is due to DNA. We know that the Aurora Borealis is just radiation from the sun. It's not 'nature changing its mind' there are rules, and we know a lot of them. The fact that I'm able to type all of this and send it to anywhere in the world is evidence of how far we have come in understanding the rules of the universe. A lot of panpsychist claims are easily disproven because of this.
I think with things like animism, or pancognitivism, or panexperientialism, the claims are much more unfalsifiable. Like, how are you going to prove we can't be reincarnated as toads and that some toads have souls as a result? How are you going to prove rocks don't have a rock king who rules over the rock kingdom? How are you going to prove that ravens aren't messengers from Odin? How are you going to prove that your toilet isn't horrifically, vividly aware of what you do to it after eating 3 Gordita Crunches from Taco Bell, back to back?
This is why I don't think panpsychism really has a place in modern philosophy. It's fun to think about, but most people are more educated nowadays and are much more empiricist when it comes to questions like "How does fire work?" or "What's this weird growth on my foot?" or "Where do mosquitos come from?"
Personally, what I've experienced on psychedelics is much more accurately described as animism, or pancognitivism, or panexperientialism. I remember petting a plant once because 'it felt lonely'.
Though, I do think the universe is an interconnected system of sorts. I just prefer to think of that system as run by logical rules rather than a mind or a bunch of minds.
edit: I just remembered this while out vaping some fine flower---A good phrase to remember the flavor of consciousness described in the word panpsychism is 'cause and impact understanding'.