waton you substitute "lifeless" for the word "dead", and thereby make my point. "Lifeless" seems a less problematic description for rocks than "dead". I'm just pointing out there is something a bit odd about calling a rock "dead", just as it would be odd to call a rainbow or a cloud or a flame "dead", although you could call them that if you wish.
To my mind, to call something "dead", implies that it has "died" at some point. That's why I find it a bit odd to call rocks "dead". When does a rock die? (Apart from rocks arising from organic matter as I said)
And anyway, panpsychists as I understand it don't argue that nonorganic matter is alive. So it's a red herring. Although I suppose you could argue that awareness on any level implies being "alive". But then the distinction between life and non-life is complicated even outside of the issue of panpsychism. All sorts of categories that are only good so far as they are useful in any case.
I don't think panpsychists would generally say rocks are conscious. In fact Strawson denies the table is conscious for example. The point is that all matter comprises basic constituents that have "awareness" as a basic property already present at the fundamental level. This is the alternative to the supposition that awareness and consciousness somehow arise suddenly in certain structures at a certain level of complexity - which is in some ways the more mystical or voodoo interpretation of reality when you think about it.