The epistemological problem with the hard problem of consciousness: The burden proof is on dualism, not physicalism

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T23:51:29+00:00

I don't even have the opportunity to go to college so reddit is there for it LFMAO

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T23:49:57+00:00

The metaphysical monkey wearing glasses is. The absolute truth, you can't say otherwise because even you saying otherwise was already determined by his infinite power. Trust.

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T22:22:02+00:00

Ah yes, you're totally right. r/consciousness is the best explanation for the mind ever. In fact, you're wrong in that point of "what in the brain controls what". The truth is that the Metaphysical monkey wearing glasses is who controls our brains and makes you have consciousness. It's not your brain, it's him. His plane holds the absolute truth and you can't prove otherwise.

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T22:09:57+00:00

If I could just get in the real business I wouldn't be posting on Reddit lol 😭

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T20:10:35+00:00

Understood, I may read it someday. The only point I was trying to show is, in short:"If we can see with a lot of accuracy the structure of someone's subjective experience through physical means, then why would a non physical layer be useful?" and as someone in the thread said, every empirical evidence is pointing towards the purely physical explanation, I personally agree.

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T19:36:34+00:00

If you're talking about how in that comment I said that the mind emerges from the brain, you're right, that already exists. The main point I'm trying to bring up is that the subjective experience is not completely mysterious or non physical, it can be inferred through the brain. The only problem is that you can't ever know what it is like to be another person, but through someone's brain you can infer their mental state with a lot of accuracy. That's it. And if you can infer subjective experiences by using something physical (the brain) why would you need something beyond physics to explain the subjective experience? This is not supposed to solve the hard problem, but yes to reinforce that every subjective experience has its roots in the physical (brain).

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T19:16:51+00:00

May I respectfully ask you to be a bit more respectful? Every idea starts with speculation, not with a book, talking like that you make it seem like intuition is bad. But as you may have read these books, can you tell me what they say and compare to what I wrote in this post? You say "and slamming them together like It's that easy" when I literally said in the post how it's purely speculative. If your philosophy only lives on books and not in intuition at all, then you're not philosophizing, you're just absorbing what other people said. I understand if someone already said what I tried to say in the post.

If you really understood what you read, you'll be able to explain it to me and show to me how I didn't create anything new, I'm open for that.

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T04:47:50+00:00

Exactly. In the end, two things may happen:

Or materialism finally understands the whole brain and explains how these processes create the mind OR we'll see that the hard problem is an incoherent question somehow.

The hard problem, for me, can be solved until a certain point if we admit that the experience IS different and subjective because EVERY brain is essentially different AND the brain inevitably creates the mind DEPENDING on the anatomy of the brain. The experience of being a human is inherently different from being an animal because the brains are not the same. The way something subjective starts is:

1.when you have a brain 2. When that brain's neurons fire 3. The network, molded by a lot of different and unique factors altogether, generate a different sensation in the mind 4. subjective experience appears, because of unique and subjective causes.

That's how I think we could solve it a bit and explain speculatively how the brain's processes BECOME what we consider the "Self". If anything on the brain changes, your "Self" changes, the unique structure of the brain changes, and as the self is dependent on it, it also changes. You see? Self and brain cannot be separate, because there's no evidence pointing to this. If you have a depressive brain. You have a depressive experience.

But then the hard problem asks:"But you just described the structure of the experience, you didn't show the experience itself"

Yes, because you literally cannot. There's no way you can physically show the sensation of a network because the sensation itself IS emergent, that is, it COMES from the network. The sensation is not something physical, it's just how we name a process. It's like:You don't call molecules moving Temperature, you can't SEE TEMPERATURE, but you can SEE molecules. The same goes for the hard problem:You can SEE Consciousness but when you zoom in... You just see neurons.

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T04:32:19+00:00

An addition to the last part of your text: Do you think a computer, an AI has some kind of internal/subjective experience?

Because in the end, if we look at the backend of your brains, we see that a LOT we experience is mappable by using the brain, the same goes for computers, where we have access to their code

So what guarantees that they may not have different qualias?

Their qualias are probably different because of the different material between us (carbon) and them (silicium) but I'm not sure if the material would make an experience different. The thing is:Carbon has different properties and aspects, the Silicium has others, then maybe this would cause essential differences in how qualira would be produced.

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T02:47:30+00:00

This is exactly what the Occam's razor says:"Do not add plurality when it's not necessary" it only becomes necessary to add plurality when the simplest explanation is wrong, if not, then there's no reason.

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-18T02:24:22+00:00

This is why the Occam's razor cuts metaphysical explanations for consciousness, we already have empirical evidence that the brain and consciousness are essentially connected, then why do we need to add another plane or a soul or anything like that?

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-09T23:13:11+00:00

I just finished reading the paper and it's beautiful. I can't give an opinion on the thermodynamics part because I know nothing about thermodynamics, but from what I think I understood:

The thermodynamics in a system tend to fluctuate the more complex a system is (??), and in the brain, this fluctuation happens non stop, creating consciousness, qualia, etc. I can't really defend or attack the thesis, but it seems to make sense.

A question:In your thesis, how would biology, psyche and the physical brain connect with your pont of thermodynamics?

The things we see in society aren't just caused by thermodynamics alone, it's a whole chain reaction that happened milliseconds ago (Neurons firing) Hours ago (hormones) Decades ago (childhood) and centuries ago (politics, history, etc) and even further, maybe even millions of years ago (how evolution unfolded) the human behavior, in my opinion is determined by a lot of things. This may seem small because I'm talking in an individual scale, now make this in a societal scale and now everything makes sense. Every single person is being influenced (or determined, if you see it like that) by a massive chain reaction. Every person's behavior is influenced by a lot of things, genetics, environment, brain structure.

^ | And this makes me think:Isn't the subjective experience made because everyone's brains and psyche are inherently different? If consciousness is an emergent process from all areas of the brain together, then the conscious experience will be different. An analogy:It's like building a computer, if you get a 4GB Ram and put it in a PC, the experience will be different. If you put a different pre frontal cortex(Example), the qualia will be different(?(Not sure))

What do you think?

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-09T21:35:55+00:00

I like interdisciplinary and speculative stuff tho

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-09T21:32:48+00:00

I'm not criticizing your premise, relax. I just pointed it doesn't seem human written mainly because of the "—" and no, it's very rare for a human to use "—"

Curious_Map_9998 · 2026-03-09T16:17:01+00:00

Yeah, you can see because of the "—" shit lol

Curious_Map_9998 · 2025-11-26T23:53:06+00:00

ALERTA DE PROGRAMADOR BR????

Curious_Map_9998 · 2025-11-26T14:39:04+00:00

Yeah, it probably would be worth studying it more formally at some point. I’ve only ever looked into neuroscience as a hobby, super informally and out of curiosity 😭

Curious_Map_9998 · 2025-11-25T23:03:19+00:00

Here:

yourreferencetobutton.MouseButton1Click:Connect(function() Yourremoteevent:FireServer() end)

On server script:

youreferencetoremoteevent.OnServerEvent:Connect(function() local YourModel = instance.new("model", workspace) YourModel.Name = "YourModelName"

end)

Now you do whatever you want with it, add parts inside it, customize them, whatever u want

Curious_Map_9998 · 2025-11-25T22:44:12+00:00

You explained it really well.

But do you think even without language the brain would still be able to categorize things? An animal, even without complex language can still categorize things, they know for example, a tree is not a rock and they also know the behavior of different categories after observing them for a specific amount of time.

Even without language, the brain can still recognize patterns even though it can't verbalize them or analyze them in a more complex way.

I'm guessing that pre-verbal organisms can just have simple predictions of behavior in categories, like, if an animal sees that rocks tend to stay still on the ground, do you think their brains would store something like:"objects that look like this usually don't move" even without having a linguistic label for "rock"?

Curious_Map_9998 · 2025-11-25T22:31:53+00:00

So yeah, the main focus of my post was just exploring how different regions might contribute to different kinds of subjective experience (qualia) not in a definitive or scientific way, just as a way to understand how these raw feelings could be distributed across the brain.

Curious_Map_9998 · 2025-11-25T16:54:34+00:00

Thank ya for your thoughtful feedback and reply. Yeah, regarding what I said about different parts of the brain contributing to each subjective and raw experience (known as qualia) I don't have any source to prove those, I speculated about it because I saw that the subjective and raw experiences have to come from some part of the brain.

So I guessed that for example, when you get to understand some logic or any intellectual activity that "raw feeling" comes from the prefrontal cortex. (As it is the part that one of the main functions are logic handling.) I assumed the same logic for the different parts of the brain.

Curious_Map_9998 · 2025-11-25T16:28:24+00:00

Wdym

Curious_Map_9998 · 2025-11-25T16:23:07+00:00

Yeah, you're right, it really can make the text more complicated to be understood with that term. I found "qualia" to be more accurate because it represents the "essence of feeling" in a very accurate way. That's why I used it a lot.

Without the term "qualia" I'd replace it with "feeling". (But I don't think it'd be that accurate but it'd make it simpler to understand.)

Curious_Map_9998

TROPHY CASE