You were talking about the burden of proof in saying that we couldn't easily prove that rocks aren't conscious. So I was supposedly making a big assumption in saying that the mystery of consciousness is tied to the mystery of life (that the one emerges solely from the other).

That may be an assumption, but it's a safe one, based on plenty of cognitive sciene that ties the two together. Taking panpsychism seriously in the way you did, for the sake of argument, would amount to shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to prove rocks aren't conscious. Someone who believes they are would have to demonstrate the utility of that model.

Anyway, this is pretty much a quibble, isn't it? I'm working on a big article on entheogens that might interest you.