ISN’T PANPSYCHISM RIDICULOUS?
No, panpsychism isn't ridiculous and anyone who claims so is venturing into metaphysics and their opinion is not based on any science or evidence whatsoever. Materialists will doubtless gasp in disbelief when one suggests that an amoeba is also conscious (sentient) at some lower level, and dismiss out of hand the ideas that atoms are sentient too but panpsychism has not been empirically refuted by any direct observation and it is simpler than alternative theories. It also has the advantage of admitting that humans do not radically diverge from the rest of nature which allows us naturally to accept the theory of evolution which holds that more highly organized physiology evolved from less organized physiology. More complicated mentality then evolves from simpler mentality. Even the simplest biological mentality distinguishes pain and well-being and all organisms show stimulus-response behaviour.process philosophy' suggesting that fundamental elements of the universe are occasions of experience, which can be collected into groups creating something as complex as a human being. This experience is not consciousness; there is no mind-body duality under this system as mind is seen as a very devaeloped kind of experience. Whitehead believed that the occasions of experience are the smallest element in the universe - even smaller than subatomic particles.
Or as Strawson put's it:
"Why have we simply assumed that the physical is in its fundamental nature non-experiential. What's the evidence for that idea? And I'll give you the answer because it's mathematically precise, there is zero evidence for the existence of non-experiential reality anywhere in the universe. So why simply assume that the fundamental things are non-experiential and then cause this huge problem for yourself which is the problem of how do I get the experiential from the non-experiential? It's much simpler, simply to suppose that there is an experiential reality already there, right at the bottom of things."