why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[The Grand Nudger]

This is where things went through the looking glass, for me.

I think we can move beyond it, though, seeing the above.  Since we both agree that the mind (or what very many people refer to as the mind) is doing alot of things, any underlying question about what the mind is doing, to what end (and I'm using the term very, very loosely) it could have been leveraged as an adaptation..is effectively settled.

You seem to be more concerned with what qualia specifically, as one of many things mind™ is up to, brings to the table.  Model control theories posit that consciousness is an attention schema.  That the subjective report can be leveraged to refine control of the finite operational assets of the system.  This would be the evolutionary benefit conferred..the sort of thing that would make the evolution of consciousness "make sense".  Mostly, because for any evoilutionary anything to make sense, it needs to refer to an inheritable biological structure or architecture or trait.  Honestly, the very moment we divorce something (even conceptually) from the organ of contention..then there's really no sense in trying to make evolution make sense, because that's what evolution is about..and if whatever we're talking about doesn't have anything to do with that...then evolutionary biology doesn't have anything to do with -it-.

Evolution as viewed in terms of genetics and its persistence due to phenotypes that benefit fitness is about that.

But under the hood, we're really talking about energetic interactions which promulgate forward through time in a kind of causal ripple THROUGH DNA.  I'd say that genetics as much represent the essence of moments (i.e. the ideas of them) as vice versa.

You're talking about something else making sense, then, in panpsychism, to you.  Evolution is just a word you attached to whatever that is.  

This is important, consider how we got here.  You had concerns that there was no evolutionary explanation for the existence of qualia, under a material monism, on account of how it didn't seem to serve any purpose.  That turned out to be both uninformative if true...and false if any of the competing evolutionary theories of qualia  (such as model control theories) are true.   You further posited that under some other paradigm, the evolution of mind made sense..this granting conceptual credibility, a bonus... to that other paradigm over others.  That other paradigm had nothing to do with the subject of evolutionary theory, however.

Now, addressing that directly, and on it's own merits, rather than the merits of the misapprehensions above...positing substance dualism or panpsychism doesn't actually move the chains of explanation a single inch when it comes to mind. Stating that mind is somehow elemental is not an explanation for how we achieve that thing. No more so than my saying "the world is made of stuff, and stuff is elemental" would be. Perhaps more interestingly, there's nothing about the statement "mind is elemental" that is uniquely true or meaningful under panpsychism or substance dualism but not materialism. If mind is information processing that occurs in the brain..well...information processing is "elemental" to material monism as well. We call it material interaction. Does that, to you...seem to make material monism or mind "make sense". It may not, and I'm not telling you that it does, in and of itself...but if this business about things being "elemental" is informative in that regard for panpsychism, then it ought to be equally informing in the case of material monism.

As a sideline, did you happen to peruse the field of model control theory?