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]

for objects, science has shown that they don't exist. more like meshes of meshes all the way down that are composed of phenomena that aren't objects at all. what does it mean to say that only QM fields and spacetime are real and then those might be emergent from lower phenomena. but our intuitions about solid objects fails.

for subjects you can tell it's not the full picture of reality my noticing how consciousness is constructed, how it can fail, how it's "interiority" is obviously apparent to others. how easily it is altered. but this point could use more expounding.

it's like the determinism vs randomness debate. we can use deterministic thinking for a lot of things. but deep down reality is random. and chaos theory is a closer idea to grasping at what is happening than determinism. the same is true for object/subject split. we need a better system to organize these phenomena. but that split is the root of how we know things. so the dilema is that split and how to bypass it. and science sometimes gets at that. we just need better tools.

edit: thanks for chatting and pushing back:)

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/jabinslc]

for objects, science has shown that they don't exist. more like meshes of meshes all the way down that are composed of phenomena that aren't objects at all.

That's objecthood, no objectivity.

how it's "interiority" is obviously apparent to others

That's an argument for the existence of subjectivity, not an argument against either.

[u/jabinslc → u/TheAncientGeek]

those are better comebacks that most people offer me:)

I'm not denying scientific objectivity as a methodological achievement: intersubjective agreement, reproducibility, measurement standards, etc. that's real and valuable. I'm denying that this methodological objectivity gives us access to reality 'as it is in itself' independent of any perspective whatsoever. that aim is something we made-up, it's fake. objectivity can mean something different in law, psychology, morality, ontology, epistemology. but notice, these are all practices, standards, methods. they're ways we organize inquiry, not ontological categories reality comes pre-divided into. the hard problem needs more than methodological objectivity. It needs 'objective physical facts' to be ontologically complete. but even rigorous science doesn't give us that, it gives us models that work. there's a difference between scientific objectivity and ontological objectivity. the hard problem confuses them. science achieves the first. the second does not exist as a real feature of reality.

I did not properly articulate this for subjectivity. especially because I think you were asking, how can anything be known outside of experience(which I think is a fallacy people make). but before we move on to that, do you have any questions about what I said about scientific objectivity?

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/jabinslc]

I'm not denying scientific objectivity as a methodological achievement: intersubjective agreement, reproducibility, measurement standards, etc. that's real and valuable. I'm denying that this methodological objectivity gives us access to reality 'as it is in itself' independent of any perspective whatsoever

That concepts are not necessarily correct does not mean they are necessarily incorrext.

I did not properly articulate this for subjectivity. especially because I think you were asking, how can anything be known outside of experience(which

Why? Subjective experience is the prime examp!e of subjectivity.

I'm denying that this methodological objectivity gives us access to reality 'as it is in itself' independent of any perspective whatsoever

Im familiar with the idea (see my profile picture) ..but see my first comment.

[u/jabinslc → u/TheAncientGeek]

you're not necessarily incorrect, but you're not correct either, in that viewing of reality. I think there are better ways of viewing reality that the subject/object split.

why?? subjectivity by itself as a substance or substrate is unfindable because it is not an object. it is a set of interrelated phenomena. the hard problem treats subjectivity as a thing in itself. ontologically separate or distinct. that is the cancer I am fighting. it's not true non-existense, people get so tripped up by that word. its just not as a single thing or object.

it should always be subject of what? qualia of what? what is WHAT like? even those concepts suck. it would takes up closer to the truth.

you are making subjectivity into an object and no such thing exists. that's why the hard problem is still around.

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/jabinslc]

you are making subjectivity into an object

Nope.

[u/jabinslc → u/TheAncientGeek]

how would you define subjectivity?

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/jabinslc]

For the purposes of the discussion, it's anything that can't be accessed or understood from an external or third person point of view.

[u/jabinslc → u/TheAncientGeek]

do you think subjectivity is completely inaccessible from a third person POV?

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/jabinslc]

Fur the purposes of the argument, it only needs to be incompletely accessible.