Do you have an operational definition of what properties you think makes you "panpsychist" rather than "non-psychist"?  I can certainly see the appeal (though I haven't done it for myself, and may not while I'm living) of denying the quale of introspecting one's own experiences.  But that leads to (AFAICT) some form of deep agnosticism about what that even is and whether it's important.   I have no path from my current beliefs to any sort of thinking that every possible subset of spacetime (every 4D enclosed space) has some important property or behavior that is similar to what I experience as consciousness. I don't think a rejection of duality leads inevitably to panpsychism.  I can have a strong intuition that consciousness, as I experience it, is probably a function of complexity and specific configurations of storage and processing, which humans have much more (perhaps many orders of magnitude) more than other animals, and is near-zero in vegetables, and even closer to absolute zero in rocks or in interstellar empty space.  I literally don't know how other humans experience it, but I see enough structural similarity that I choose to believe them when they make tongue-flapping sound-pressure waves that encode their communications about it. As an entity gets further in structure or interaction style, I am less sure.  I guess, to follow in your public declaration path: I'm a consciousness-agnostic.  I admit the possibility that everything has qualia, and I admit the possibility that I am fully alone in the universe and the rest of y'all are p-zombies (or don't exist at all, in the case of me being a Boltzmann brain).  I do think, by fairly naive statistical reasoning, that it's most likely that things are as they seem, and most humans are rather similar to me (though varying somewhat) in their cognitive/emotional/experiential processing.  I think it's possible that other large-brained mammals are comparable, but likely much lower.  I think it's unlikely that sma