People were a priori against the conclusions of his arguments so they couldn't bring themselves to understand his arguments, but nevertheless they criticized the arguments, mostly missing the point

Reading this reminded me of reading critiques of Spinoza and Voltaire by their contemporaries

It's our reminder here that we are not alone

If it's me whom you're asking:

Yesterday, while trying to find her article about panpsychism, I stumbled upon this podcast. It explains the problems I had with her article a lot more concisely than I ever could (after all, the guy's a philosopher and I'm a physicist), so check it out if you're curious (fully recommend, it's an amazing video). https://youtu.be/BUIWW_2afBU

I don't remember details nor where I watched it anymore, but as far I remember, she was "debunking" panpsychism with some arguments which were showing that she doesn't understand what panpsychism is claiming in the first place. Something along the lines of, electrons cannot make conscious decisions therefore they cannot be conscious

EDIT: ok, here is her post. A load of bullcrap:

backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-think.html

I'm not in that field so I wouldn't know. I do see she's got an h-index of 31, which is not bad, to say the least. Do you have some more info?

She's cool, but she seems a bit arrogant at times and has some really iffy takes on panpsychism