>HN-favorite Scott Aaronson resolves to my satisfaction the question of whether a waterfall can be said to be computing the solution to some problem as it cascades over the rocks, because there exists a mapping in which the initial water state is the initial state of the problem, the gyrations of the water "compute", and the final state of the water can be mapped to a solution. He points out that we can with some actual mathematical rigor observe that the mapping itself can be said to be doing all the work.
This is why panpsychism appeals to me. On some level it makes more sense for me to believe that sentients is an intrinsic property of physical reality then to believe that sentients can emerge from someone moving sticks and stones around according to some algorithm.
The possibility of sticks and stones, their motions, and algorithms are already an intrinsic property of reality, so the things you want already exist in the model you reject.
Maybe sentience is intrinsic to change (someone moving sticks and stones around according to some algorithm). Have you read Giulio Tononi's "Integrated information theory of consciousness"? One of its conclusions is that panpsychism must be true.
This is why panpsychism appeals to me. On some level it makes more sense for me to believe that sentients is an intrinsic property of physical reality then to believe that sentients can emerge from someone moving sticks and stones around according to some algorithm.