Since you mention Hume You might consider that the problem he proposes makes the entire concept of causality suspect. That would go worse for you whose claim is more far removed from probability than what we can actually demonstrate.
You really are arguing against us both - but the consequence would be to make your proposal less likely than mine.
I puzzled why you don't see this.
My understanding of what Hume established is that causation is not somthing we observe, but something we infer in phenomena because of an a priori or innate and unjustifiable assumption of a necessary connection between phenomena.
There is certainly an interpretation of Hume that suggested he thought causation is not a real property of reality and I am certaintly in no position to claim what he actually believed.
As we are both taking it for granted that causation is real, at least in the context of this discussion, I am not sure what Hume's believed is actually relevant. My point was that correlation between two phenonena does not necessarily imply a direct causal link, not that there is no causation involved at all. My reference to Hume was made in the hope this might help you understand the relationship between induction, correlation, deduction, causation and explanation.
I think its helpful to relate to Hume's "mitigated skepticism". He considered billiard balls. For two balls colliding we have no a priori knowledge about what event will unfold. The moving ball might reverse, both balls might go off in unpredictable direction; or they might transform into a punch of flowers. There is nothing innate or predictable until we actually experience the event. For these common successions of action we tend to infer general rules. Causation (in this context) is a metaphysical proposition, a rationalisation that humans seem bound by their nature to seek out.
For pragmatic reasons we tend to use probabilistic judgements about possible outcomes based on the principle of causality. The wisest of us will learn to reject common contradictions of those predictions and change our thoughts on underlying causalities.
All this takes hard work and study.
I just don't think Panpsychism has anything to offer this process. Complete answers answer nothing. You might as well say- god makes it so.