It's not about persuasion as much as facts and arguments

It seems "positive experience" is hard wired in to every single living thing on earth. For trees, the sunlight is positive experience because it provides energy. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? But you are the one talking about inert matter needing to have "positive inner experiences".

The essence of panpsychism is that consciousness is an irreducible property of the universe, and I'm of the belief that everything, literally everything, in existence has some degree of qualia attached to it, and the physical complexity of beings enriches the "quality" of inner experience, so you may never know what sunlight or anything else feels to a leaf or a branch or a tree but there's a possibility its not nothing, experience of "nothing", imo is an imaginary construct, I mean, if you think about it, even in your deepest, dreamless sleeps you have some internal sensation going on, and that enables you to tell (approximately) how long you've been asleep

Why would pansychism derive egoist organisms? It would be more intuitive to think the opposite, that all organisms are one and therefor have no need to serve a segregated and individualized egoist motive.

Have to admit, "egoism" wasn't really the best term to use here, or anywhere in OP. What I really meant was hedonism (in the philosophical sense of the word), and the innate preference of beings towards stimuli that create inner "positive" sensations

None of these things are going to happen, not at least in our lifetimes

Just fear mongering

IMO a good reason for the illusion of altruism is the innate human desire for socialization and companionship, which were most definitely necessary for survival as well as satisfaction earlier but arguably are somewhat less necessary nowadays, so we now "see", due to self reliance and isolationism, that what we used to call altruism were just means of fulfillment of one's own desires, securities and moral contentment.

I don't know, man. I've only ever seen people arguing over the existence/non existence of altruism use arguments that are riddled with biases and objectively inapplicable.

However, in spite of how "ugly" I find the egoist position, I've seen absolutely no good counter arguments, and any example of altruism can be explained away by an egoist as a counter example. This is what forced me into my current position.

I would be more than glad if you (or anyone else) can change my view :D

ah. Just realized you don't get notificationsin this forum unless you're tagged.

Despite lacking free will, our brains tend to do what we prefer and avoid what we don't enjoy, thanks to millions of years of programming behind it

well, at least you don't have the preference to feel pain. Imagine if that were the case, and it would be outside your control

And congratulations on your 600th post here X-)

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying in the OP. Evolution also doesn't explain this predisposition of organisms to act in self interest. If you had to hazard a guess, where do you think this might've come from?

And, there are only two ways to explain consciousness IMO. Panpsychism or emergentism. Emergentism has bigger problems

But in any case, inert matter needed to able to differentiate sensations. It simply couldn't have been the case that activities that produce positive inner experiences are just linked to survival randomly

I made another thread http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/559/egoism-and-evolution/p1

Thanks for all the responses. There are periods where I do not think of these kind of things for days at a stretch and occasionally on some days philosophy, physics, math are all I can think of, and the people around me assume I'm down or something, lol. So its hard for me to participate actively in threads.
Anyhow, my ideas sort of align with @bert1's . Anyone interested to read more on this subject, have a look at this aeon article - https://aeon.co/essays/how-consciousness-works-and-why-we-believe-in-ghosts