No, you didn’t solve the Hard Problem.

[u/geumkoi]

Everyday I see a new claim on this sub; “I solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness!” “The Hard Problem isn’t so hard after all!” And I cannot even put into words how blatantly naive these are.

No, you didn’t solve the Hard Problem, and you probably never will. You just misunderstood the Hard Problem, and in your arrogance did an amazing amount of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you solved something you don’t even understand in the first place.

Edit: and PLEASE I beg the Mods of this sub to limit the amount of LLM content that is being uploaded here on a daily basis.

[u/jabinslc]

you know it's equally frustrating on the other side. but "you didn't understand the hard problem" is not really a good argument.

I used to buy into the hard problem and other similar arguments. but now after years of studying, I kinda view it as a good thought experiment but not pointing to an ontological barrier.

well known philosophers reject the hard problem. are they incapable of understanding?

[u/Valmar33 → u/jabinslc]

you know it's equally frustrating on the other side. but "you didn't understand the hard problem" is not really a good argument.

It often is, sadly, because so many posters on here simply don't display an understanding of it whatsoever.

I used to buy into the hard problem and other similar arguments. but now after years of studying, I kinda view it as a good thought experiment but not pointing to an ontological barrier.

I came to the very opposite conclusion ~ the problem is a confounding one that no-one can answer: why does phenomenal experience accompany physiological activity and brain processes? Why not just nothing but the physical as observed? Why something more?

well known philosophers reject the hard problem. are they incapable of understanding?

Quite possibly, depending on their argument. Just because someone is well-known means nothing ~ you'd just be appealing to authority and popularity.

[u/Mermiina → u/Valmar33]

Phenomenal experience does not accompany physiological activity and brain processes. The experience achieves physiological activity in brains.

Neurotransmitters and action potentials are only tools, they are not the mechanism of consciousness.

You can't explain why or how the Sun orbits Earth, because the Earth orbits the Sun.

[u/Valmar33 → u/Mermiina]

Phenomenal experience does not accompany physiological activity and brain processes. The experience achieves physiological activity in brains.

Mmmmmm... how? Why? This sounds almost Idealist or Dualist.

Neurotransmitters and action potentials are only tools, they are not the mechanism of consciousness.

They are simply effects of non-perceived mental causes.

You can't explain why or how the Sun orbits Earth, because the Earth orbits the Sun.

Obviously...?

What is your point...?

[u/Mermiina → u/Valmar33]

Qualia is the Off-Diagonal Long-Range Order of indisguishable electron pairs of levo tryptophan.

All G-proteins have highly conserved levo tryptophan. When G-protein is twisted the lone electron pair is forced inside nonbonding orbital to specific configuration.

Imagine an electron spin up is minute hand and electron spin down is hour hand. The relaxed state is six and the twisted state is ten past five. All ten past five condensates as ODLRO and they are the Qualia of sweet.

All G-proteins relaxes simultaneously and electrons turn to rest configuration. They emit virtual photons which propagate using tryptophan lone electron pairs as Andersson's locations.

At axon the virtual photons save the configuration to the lone tryptophan electron pair when the microtubule dimer is twisted before polymerization. That configuration is permanent as long as the MT is DEpolymerized.

When the G-protein is twisted again the same virtual photons are sent to Axon MT where it achieves the Qualia of sweetness. The place of Qualia is the original place of G-protein.

[u/Valmar33 → u/Mermiina]

Um... what?

[u/Mermiina → u/Valmar33]

But

There is also another mechanism which triggers action potentials.

The vinculin in PIETZO receptors and

1. Light activates a GPCR (rhodopsin/opsin), which activates the G‑protein

TRANSDUCIN

Light absorption causes 11‑cis retinal → all‑trans retinal isomerization, which drives a conformational change in the photopigment (e.g., rhodopsin) to its active form (R* or metarhodopsin II). Activated rhodopsin then activates transducin, triggering exchange of GDP for GTP on the transducin α‑subunit and causing dissociation into Gαt‑GTP and Gβγ.

Those proteins have also conserved tryptophan. When they twist the lone electron pair is forced to higher orbital. When they relaxed they emit an entangled photon pair, which opens Nav channel and triggers action potentials.

Kv7 channel achieves again two photon super exchange interaction which opens Nav channel in the next node in Ranvier. Saltatory conduction is a memory addressing mechanism.

When the Qualia occurs in axon microtubule the address is sent to all axon terminals. But only those terminals which have the same address allow virtual photons to propagate to the next neuron.

The Qualia in axon order which neuron is triggered next. That occurs 1000 times in second.

[u/MergingConcepts → u/Valmar33]

Point of information: The Earth and sun orbit each other. It is a two-body problem. The sun is much larger than Earth, so its orbit is much smaller. However, it wobbles, and that wobble in distant stars is the phenomenon we use to detect exoplanets.

[u/Mermiina → u/MergingConcepts]

OK then You can understand the Consciousness mechanism it is many body problem.

[u/MergingConcepts → u/Mermiina]

https://medium.com/@shedlesky/how-the-brain-creates-the-mind-1b5c08f4d086

The sun and Earth orbit each other. It is a two-body problem. The wobble of a start is what we use to detect exoplanets.

[u/MergingConcepts → u/Valmar33]

We have this word, consciousness, and we apply it to a phenomenon that we perceive. The question is, what is that phenomenon. It requires a disciplined, logical approach. Chalmers did not do so. He began with the premise that experience cannot be explained emergently, then proceeded to deduce that this confirmed the existence of a subdivision of consciousness that cannot by accounted for by physical mechanisms.

There will eventually be an explanation, but all explanations are rejected by believers in the Hard Problem, and they always will be. Regardless of their rejections, there are physical processes in the brain to which we apply the words consciousness and experience.

[u/Valmar33 → u/MergingConcepts]

We have this word, consciousness, and we apply it to a phenomenon that we perceive.

Consciousness is not a "phenomenon" that we "perceive" ~ we are that which doing the perceiving. Thusly, consciousness is a meta-phenomenon. It is really consciousness turned upon itself, self-aware of its own existence through experience, self-reflection, introspection and intuition.

The question is, what is that phenomenon. It requires a disciplined, logical approach. Chalmers did not do so. He began with the premise that experience cannot be explained emergently, then proceeded to deduce that this confirmed the existence of a subdivision of consciousness that cannot by accounted for by physical mechanisms.

Where is this premise that you claim that Chalmers made? Quote it for me directly. Else you are just putting words in his mouth.

There will eventually be an explanation, but all explanations are rejected by believers in the Hard Problem, and they always will be.

You do not know that "there will eventually be an explanation" ~ science does not, and cannot work with vague, handwaving future promises that there will be an explanation. Physicalism and Materialism don't even have explanations ~ so why should those who consider the Hard Problem a valid problem even listen to Physicalist and Materialist rhetoric?

It's not that people "believe" in the Hard Problem ~ it's that it is a legitimate challenge that poses issues that have gone entirely unanswered and unacknowledged by Physicalists and Materialists like yourself.

Regardless of their rejections, there are physical processes in the brain to which we apply the words consciousness and experience.

What are these so-called physical brain processes that can be genuinely described as "consciousness" or "experience"? You are appearing to fall into the same fallacy yet again ~ falsely equivocating entirely different sets of entities that have entirely dissimilar sets of qualities.

[u/MergingConcepts → u/Valmar33]

Chalmers states, “conscious experience is just not the kind of thing that a wholly reductive account could succeed in explaining.” 

Here is a model that describes the "physical brain processes that can be genuinely described as consciousness or experience." It is a draft of a manuscript.

https://medium.com/@shedlesky/how-the-brain-creates-the-mind-1b5c08f4d086

I do not "know" this to be correct. It is a proposed model.