Blank-slatism is so obviously wrong it is hard to see how you even got there. Even as babies people have completely different personalities and approaches even though all they are doing is lying there. When a baby is adopted by a completely different kind of family than the one they were born into, they bear remarkable similarities to the original family that they don’t to the adoptive in some areas. Older people always react differently than each other to identical approaches too (though you could argue path-dependence there.). Genetic factors are well established as making a difference to many lasting traits that clearly change how people interact with the world, including things such as height and other physical attributes, extraversion and other personality types, and things like IQ or other talents. There are reasons besides genetics that show blank-slatism is wrong, but those thoughts are less self-evident. I am not, and could not, be exactly the same as others (though I could have been, and could yet be, very different than I am now.)
Panpsychism is an obvious non-starter too. It is clear that consciousness is an attribute of things that can think, because consciousness is a certain kind of self-reflective thinking. Thus, it should not be attributed to anything unlikely to be thinking in a sophisticated manner. I doubt consciousness for animals in general, but at the very least, it is certain that only animals and up even have the chance. (Perhaps you might be able to make a conscious AI sometime in the future [I don’t have a strong position on it], but that wouldn’t make the computers it was running on conscious.)
Your claim that being used as raw materials later is somehow reincarnation falls apart the moment your panpsychism does.
Blank-slatism is so obviously wrong it is hard to see how you even got there. Even as babies people have completely different personalities and approaches even though all they are doing is lying there. When a baby is adopted by a completely different kind of family than the one they were born into, they bear remarkable similarities to the original family that they don’t to the adoptive in some areas. Older people always react differently than each other to identical approaches too (though you could argue path-dependence there.). Genetic factors are well established as making a difference to many lasting traits that clearly change how people interact with the world, including things such as height and other physical attributes, extraversion and other personality types, and things like IQ or other talents. There are reasons besides genetics that show blank-slatism is wrong, but those thoughts are less self-evident. I am not, and could not, be exactly the same as others (though I could have been, and could yet be, very different than I am now.)
Panpsychism is an obvious non-starter too. It is clear that consciousness is an attribute of things that can think, because consciousness is a certain kind of self-reflective thinking. Thus, it should not be attributed to anything unlikely to be thinking in a sophisticated manner. I doubt consciousness for animals in general, but at the very least, it is certain that only animals and up even have the chance. (Perhaps you might be able to make a conscious AI sometime in the future [I don’t have a strong position on it], but that wouldn’t make the computers it was running on conscious.)
Your claim that being used as raw materials later is somehow reincarnation falls apart the moment your panpsychism does.