[naasking]

> One could (and many have) write volumes on why this is the case, but I believe the simplest explanation of why the Hard Problem is Hard is that we are unable to even state the nature of the problem in a satisfactory way.

Or the nature of our perceptions simply fools us into thinking there's actually a problem to solve.

[JackFr]

Or our brains are tricking us into believing that they are universal knowing machines -- that is anything we cannot know cannot be, and anything that is we are capable of knowing.

[AstralStorm]

Interesting figure of speech "our brains". Did you employ some other reasoning tool formulating that sentence? (Yes you did, quite a few. Those tools were designed using the brain too.)

[JackFr]

I don't follow -- but I'm curious what you mean?

[throwaway37585]

Elaborate?

[naasking]

The problem of qualia stems from taking certain properties of our perceptions at face value. Like subjectivity, which can't be explained by an appeal to third-person objective facts.

But subjectivity could very well be an illusion. Like how single CPU computers simulate multitasking, the maelstrom of conflicting signals constantly vying for dominance could create an illusion of "inner" and "outer" that we mistake for subjectivity, because we don't have a lens with which to observe this inner process.

See the following for a possible mechanistic explanation of subjectivity: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0050...

[throwaway37585]

> But subjectivity could very well be an illusion.

This sounds like a contradiction. What is being illuded? If there is no subject, there can't be an illusion.

[naasking]

Man, If I had a nickel every time someone used that reply...

> If there is no subject, there can't be an illusion.

A common misconception, but incorrect. An illusion is simply a fact that, when taken at face value, entails a false conclusion. There is no reason a computer system can't be deceived by an illusion too, even one without "consciousness".

[throwaway37585]

> Man, If I had a nickel every time someone used that reply...

Perhaps the reason you see it so frequently is because it's obvious?

> An illusion is simply a fact that, when taken at face value, entails a false conclusion.

An illusion is simply what fact? What does it mean to take it at "face value"? What "false conclusion" does it entail?

> There is no reason a computer system can't be deceived by an illusion too, even one without "consciousness".

I think you're equivocating here. What definition of illusion are you using?

[naasking]

> An illusion is simply what fact? What does it mean to take it at "face value"? What "false conclusion" does it entail?

A fact is an observation, a sensory input, a measurement, etc. The observation of a pencil in water [1], if taken at face value, entails a false conclusion.

If instead such a fact were integrated into a larger set of facts from which we infer a coherent picture of reality, a very different conclusion emerges.

No part of the above depends upon any sort of subject.

> I think you're equivocating here. What definition of illusion are you using?

I'm not. I'm using the same definition that I provided to you, namely that an illusion is a fact that naively entails a false conclusion. If you want a dictionary.com definition, "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality".

Of course, you could jump on "deceives" again with some unnecessary appeal to subjectivity, which is why I say "entails a false conclusion" instead.

[1] https://pixabay.com/en/pencil-bent-pencil-pencil-in-water-24...