Regarding my quip about panpsychism the other day, philosopher Mohan Matthen (Toronto) writes: "Goff anticipates your objection, which is the first listed in his SEP entry, under the title, 'Objections to Panpsychism: The Incredulous Stare.' I happen to think that the Incredulous Stare holds water though, because it’s beyond crazy to argue a priori for a contingent proposition, and beyond even that to argue that panpsychism is necessary."

"Beyond crazy" usually doesn't slow philosophers down, especially in the modern academy, where there are professional incentives to make sure every possible position in logical space is occupied.  The only way to settle this matter is with a poll, of course.  So please rank order these philosophical positions from most to least preposterous.

UPDATE:  Philosopher Michael Strevens (NYU) writes:   "I think that panpsychism is likely to come out looking much better if you let everything vote, not just people."   Good point!  Same goes for letting possible people in other possible worlds vote!