This thread has had a great deal of speculation as to whether or not things such as rocks or atoms or quarks could be aware on any level. In the OP, Slimboy fat framed the debate by stating that "Panpsychism is the idea that experience is a property of all matter."
It has been put forth that this idea is a suggested solution to the problem of consciousness: "We don't know how consciousness arises so maybe it's an innate quality of everything!"
That, to my mind at least, seems to be the philosophical equivalent of a "God of the Gaps" argument. It lacks a logical foundation and any rigor. It is not based on any direct evidence. It is not falsifiable. In short, it is a completely unscientific proposition.
Notably absent has been any serious discussion as to how things, including "all matter," could possibly experience awareness. This is why I linked, (way back on page 2 of this thread), the statement from The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.
Whether you agree with the assessment and conclusions of the esteemed panel of scientists involved in this statement, you should carefully consider their methods.
Part of their criteria of determining consciousness involved a thing having the appropriate apparatus to be aware and to experience that. This includes:
- Sensory Input Device(s) - To experience awareness, an entity or thing must have some way to receive information (data) from its surroundings. For us, these are our eyes, ears, skin, etc. Bats have echolocation and some fish are believed to be able to sense magnetic fields. (See the NatGeo article: "Animal Superpowers" for more.)
- Processing Apparatus - A thing must then have some kind of neural network or substrate--some kind of apparatus or equipment--to process the data input received. This generally results in a response of some kind.
- Response - While we can't directly know what it's like to be a bat, we can definitely observe their responses to outside stimuli.
Applying this methodology to non-living things does not even begin to suggest that inanimate matter experiences awareness.
Sure, if I hit a rock with a hammer there will be a response. But this can all be explained by Newtonian physics. More subtle reactions on atomic are quantum levels are also explainable by physical, chemical and/or mechanical explanations, none of which involve any alleged "awareness," or data processing resulting in an inwardly motivated response from the item in question as opposed to a reaction caused by an outward force.
That rock I see outside in my backyard isn't going to get up and move on its own. Never. Ever.
A review of Newton's Three Laws is useful here methinks.