> Our experience of what red actually looks like is entirely our own and in no way can be compared.

I'm very well aware of qualia and a lot of the literature on it. Heh.

> Many people entertain the idea that quantum mechanics hints at a link between the subjective experience and the physical universe through various interpretations. I don't think lay-people (me included) should be adopting any of these interpretations as philosophical evidence.

Roger Penrose and the Wigner-von Neumann interpretation lol.

> do you consider panpsychism to be a valid idea?

It's not my favorite idea, hence why I mentioned a sort of inverse of panpsychism. Rather than consciousness "being everywhere," it is totally philosophically reasonable that consciousness exists nowhere at all, (even Descartes mentioned this, though that seems to be sorely neglected in the discussion of consciousness) since existence in space is not a requirement for consciousness. I.e. take the substance out of dualism in that case.

That said, an idea I dislike even more is emergentism - unless that emergentism references panpsychism. Why? Because emergentism ascribes more to emergence than emergence is capable of, a sort of logical jump to think that emergence means "fundamentally new phenomenon," which is just not the case. It ascribes magical qualities to emergence and is a way of completely avoiding the problem, and adds nothing to it.

> Do you acknowledge the legitimacy of subjective experiences of other humans as much as your own?

Yes. I am actually a former vegan, starting to maybe be winding back to vegetarianism, and this topic is fundamental to those choices.

Overall, I like the fact that you seem to have a solid grasp on this topic. :)