I have a pet theory that i'd like to discuss here.

1. Panpsychism is true.

2. All sufficiently evolved species have a predisposition to act in self interest. This is known as psychological egoism.

3. Even though we see acts of altruism and sacrifice, one can argue that it's ultimately for one's own contentment/ satisfaction or ego. They're still doing these things for their own self, in a way. So I'd say psychological egoism is trivially true . Note that this tendency does NOT imply all acts of kindness are worthless.

4. Psychological egoism is what drives us to do pleasurable activities, basically anything that makes us happy and avoid pain, includes will to suffer in the short term if it means the pleasure felt afterwards more than offsets the pain.

5. But this tendency has no real advantage from an evolutionary perspective. Evolution is only concerned with the ability to pass on your genes, biological fitness, survival etc.

6. Sure, most activities that are pleasurable (good food, winning something, sex, music, exercise etc) are also absolutely necessary for survival, but there are a lots of things too, which are really pleasurable, but offer no real advantage to the survival of the individual's species in terms of evolution.

7. All activities that have the feel-good factor are not necessarily activities that are beneficial to one's evolutionary fitness. But organisms keep doing them anyways.

8. From (7), it follows that organisms have had this tendency to pursue pleasurable activities and minimise pain even before these activities gave them evolutionary advantages.

9. Organisms, acting in their self interests, were simply pursuing activities that were euphoric without any regards to one's fitness, passing of their genes and their species' survival. Species for which these activities aligned with the activities beneficial for their survival were successful. We may also imagine that millions of years of mutations/ selective elimination of genes turned these activities necessary for survival more intense (including pain and punishment, intense pain=more incentive to do/avoid something) , so organisms adhere to these rules strictly, thus improving their efficiency.

10. From all of this we can deduce that evolution cannot offer an explanation to why species would turn psychologically egoistic, evolution itself assumes the predisposition of organisms to behave egotistically, and uses this fact to eliminate (or propagate) individuals from a gene pool.

11. In other words, species are successful if their acts of self interest align with the interests of their group's as well as their own survival, and fail if their acts of self interest don't coincide with their group's survival (and their own, to some extent). Nothing wrong this, but what evolution doesn't tell us is why, in the first place, organisms are acting in self interest.

12. My guess is that organisms are intrinsically egoist, as a micro quality derived from the panpsychist "stuff" itself.

13. The "Arrow B" in this article is tangential to what I mean in (12).

14. The problem is, how in the first place could the 'physical stuff' have (read primitive form of the CNS) begun to learn what states of qualia its 'pansychist stuff' is in?

To avoid misunderstanding , I'll rephrase (14) in clearer language.

Your brain(the physical) knows what a certain experience feels like, if its a positive or negative one, and takes an action either to do it again or not, depending on whether the qualia was positive or negative, so there's a definitive physical influence caused by the panpsychistic substance. But how could these two things, the brain and the substance, possibly learn to communicate, so the brain can favour activities leading to positive qualia over those leading to negative qualia?