The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I always find it amusing when theists selectively cite the part of a Wikipedia article which appears to support their pet biases, while studiously ignoring the ‘Criticisms’ section. It’s a giggle and no mistake.

Boru

I shall destroy this claim then. I like how you automatically went to the 'arguments against' section of wikipedia, as if you wanted to assure yourself that there was no possible way this could be true and were desperately grasping at any straws you could to reinforce your degrading beliefs.

One criticism of panpsychism is that it cannot be empirically tested.[9] A corollary of this criticism is that panpsychism has no predictive power. Tononi and Koch write: "Besides claiming that matter and mind are one thing, [panpsychism] has little constructive to say and offers no positive laws explaining how the mind is organized and works."[33]

John Searle has alleged that panpsychism's unfalsifiability goes deeper than run-of-the-mill untestability: it is unfalsifiable because "It does not get up to the level of being false. It is strictly speaking meaningless because no clear notion has been given to the claim."[65] The need for coherence and clarification is accepted by David Skrbina, a proponent of panpsychism.[18]: 15 

Many proponents of panpsychism base their arguments not on empirical support but on panpsychism's theoretical virtues. Chalmers says that while no direct evidence exists for the theory, neither is there direct evidence against it, and that "there are indirect reasons, of a broadly theoretical character, for taking the view seriously."[9] Notwithstanding Tononi and Koch's criticism of panpsychism, they state that it integrates consciousness into the physical world in a way that is "elegantly unitary."[33]

A related criticism is what seems to many to be the theory's bizarre nature.[9] Goff dismisses this objection:[1] though he admits that panpsychism is counterintuitive, he notes that Einstein's and Darwin's theories are also counterintuitive. "At the end of the day," he writes, "you should judge a view not for its cultural associations but by its explanatory power."[29]

That's not even including the Observer Effect

As you can see it actually can be measured. Our observations and our energy will effect the energy around us. Because it is sentient and can grasp our intentions.

Problem of mental causation
Further information: Problem of mental causation
Philosophers such as Chalmers have argued that theories of consciousness should be capable of providing insight into the brain and mind to avoid the problem of mental causation.[9][104] If they fail to do that, the theory will succumb to epiphenomenalism,[104] a view commonly criticised as implausible or even self-contradictory.[84][105][106] Proponents of panpsychism (especially those with neutral monist tendencies) hope to bypass this problem by dismissing it as a false dichotomy; mind and matter are two sides of the same coin, and mental causation is merely the extrinsic description of intrinsic properties of mind.[107] Robert Howell has argued that all causal functions are still accounted for dispositionally (i.e., in terms of the behaviors described by science), leaving phenomenality causally inert.[108] He concludes, "This leaves us once again with epiphenomenal qualia, only in a very surprising place."[108] Neutral monists reject such dichotomous views of mind-body interaction.[107][45]

We have already proved in the previous criticism that, our intentions effect things outside of our brain. 

Combination problem
The combination problem (which is related to the binding problem) can be traced to William James,[11] but was given its present name by William Seager in 1995.[109][11] The problem arises from the tension between the seemingly irreducible nature of consciousness and its ubiquity. If consciousness is ubiquitous, then every atom (or every bit, depending on the theory) has a minimal level of it. How then, as Keith Frankish puts it, do these "tiny consciousnesses combine" to create larger conscious experiences such as "the twinge of pain" he feels in his knee?[110] This objection has garnered significant attention,[11][110][1] and many have attempted to answer it.[93][111] None of the proposed answers has gained widespread acceptance.[11]

Concepts related to this problem include the classical sorites paradox (aggregates and organic wholes), mereology (the philosophical study of parts and wholes), Gestalt psychology, and Leibniz's concept of the vinculum substantiale.

I see no problem with this, its simply a matter of amplification. Also it is very interesting that energy is able to carry the information of 'feelings of pain' to our brain. But mostly its just a matter of amplification, the more is connected the more 'memory' it is capable of storing and the like.

Actually, I didn’t ‘jump’ to anything at all. I didn’t even look at the article you linked - I’m familiar enough with panpsychism that I didn’t need to.

You haven’t proved or demonstrated anything about mentation affecting physical matter (the video doesn’t establish what you seem to think it does), and you haven’t disposed of the objections to your nonsense, you’ve simply rejected them.

You remain very stupid.

Boru