Why hard problem is even here? Consciousness isn't magic, because chinese room in conscious, and it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, because of paradoxes.
That still doesn't explain why I'm conscious, something that I have direct, first-hand experience of.
> Consciousness isn't magic, because chinese room in conscious
That doesn't explain anything.
Does that explain to the person experiencing consciousness why they are? No it doesn't.
It just says "something else is conscious so you are too". Which is not an explanation, it's circular.
Is it relevant if the Chinese room is conscious as well? Not really.
I am curious, though. Do you consider a system (such as a Chinese room) to be conscious if it's only implicit, by writing down the rules it should run, without actually performing any of the rules? What if it's so implicit that we don't even write down anything, we just refer to it by name, and assume we would create the rules if we needed to as the first steps in execution? Is it conscious when nothing happens at all, but it could happen? If yes, does that mean every possible thing that could occur is conscious even if it doesn't occur? Every physical possibility is conscious? The whole world of abstract mathematics is conscious? If the answer to any of those is no, where do you draw the line between conscious things (Chinese room) and not-conscious things?
Hard problem suggests that consciousness is magical, in which case it could mess with physics. But if consciousness isn't magic, then hard problem is a problem of understanding, not a problem of physics.
>without actually performing any of the rules?
Chinese room works like human mind, so it should run to be conscious.
> Consciousness isn't magic, because chinese room in conscious
That doesn't explain anything.
Does that explain to the person experiencing consciousness why they are? No it doesn't.
It just says "something else is conscious so you are too". Which is not an explanation, it's circular.
Is it relevant if the Chinese room is conscious as well? Not really.
I am curious, though. Do you consider a system (such as a Chinese room) to be conscious if it's only implicit, by writing down the rules it should run, without actually performing any of the rules? What if it's so implicit that we don't even write down anything, we just refer to it by name, and assume we would create the rules if we needed to as the first steps in execution? Is it conscious when nothing happens at all, but it could happen? If yes, does that mean every possible thing that could occur is conscious even if it doesn't occur? Every physical possibility is conscious? The whole world of abstract mathematics is conscious? If the answer to any of those is no, where do you draw the line between conscious things (Chinese room) and not-conscious things?