[lproven]

I think I'm out.

I do not find the argument that the Hard Problem is a problem convincing. I don't think it's hard or even really a problem; it's people arguing about Peano derivations when discussing how many angels are dancing on the heads of how many pins.

It's irrelevant and it's not just missing the point, it's actively spreading smoke clouds around the area of the point so that nobody can see it any more.

For me, Douglas Adams nailed philosophy:

« It is often said that a disproportionate obsession with purely academic or abstract matters indicates a retreat from the problems of real life. However, most of the people engaged in such matters say that this attitude is based on three things: ignorance, stupidity, and nothing else. Philosophers, for example, argue that they are very much concerned with the problems posed by real life. Like, for instance, “what do we mean by real?”, and “how can we reach an empirical definition of life?”, and so on. »

I recognise that some people find these issues significant and important. I do not. If that's what interests you, I have nothing more to contribute.

[Vecr]

I'm not saying I disagree. If a philosopher rejects the Hard Problem, they need to come out and say it, especially if they are disagreeing with the computer scientists and Turing.

That's not the most usual position.