he core issue is that there’s an inference gap between having subjective experience and the claim that it is non-physical.
Of course there is. There is no reason there should not be. Who told you otherwise? Chalmers takes hundreds of pages to set out his argument.
Physical reductionism is compatible with the idea that the stuff at the bottom of the stack is irreducible, but consciousness appears to be a high level phenomenon.
Chalmers takes hundreds of pages to set out his argument.
His argument does not bridge that gap. He, like you, does not provide objective criteria for a satisfying explanation, which means by definition you do not know what the thing is that requires explanation, no matter how many words are used trying to describe it.
I know. Like I said, neither Chalmers nor you or anyone else have shown it plausible that subjective experience is non-physical. Moreover, you repeatedly avoid giving an objective description what you’re looking for.
Until either of the above change, there is no reason to think there is a Hard Problem.
Also., the existence of a problem does not depend on the existence of a solution.
Agreed, but even if no possible solution can ultimately satisfy objective properties, until those properties are defined the problem itself remains undefined. Can you define these objective properties?
All I’m asking for is a way for other people to determine whether a given explanation will satisfy you. You haven’t given enough information to do that. Until that changes we can’t know that we even agree on the meaning of the Hard Problem.
The meaning of the Hard Problem doesn’t depend on satisfying me, since I didn’t invent it. If you want to find out what it is, you need to read Chalmers at some point.
Of course there is. There is no reason there should not be. Who told you otherwise? Chalmers takes hundreds of pages to set out his argument.
Physical reductionism is compatible with the idea that the stuff at the bottom of the stack is irreducible, but consciousness appears to be a high level phenomenon.
His argument does not bridge that gap. He, like you, does not provide objective criteria for a satisfying explanation, which means by definition you do not know what the thing is that requires explanation, no matter how many words are used trying to describe it.
The discussion was about whether there is a Hard Problem , not whether Chalmers or I have solved it.
I know. Like I said, neither Chalmers nor you or anyone else have shown it plausible that subjective experience is non-physical. Moreover, you repeatedly avoid giving an objective description what you’re looking for.
Until either of the above change, there is no reason to think there is a Hard Problem.
Like.I said, I don’t have to justify non physicalism when that is not.what the discussion is about.
Also., the existence of a problem does not depend on the existence of a solution.
Agreed, but even if no possible solution can ultimately satisfy objective properties, until those properties are defined the problem itself remains undefined. Can you define these objective properties?
Weve been through this.
You don’t have a non circular argument that everything is objective
It can be an objective fact that subjectivity exists.
All I’m asking for is a way for other people to determine whether a given explanation will satisfy you. You haven’t given enough information to do that. Until that changes we can’t know that we even agree on the meaning of the Hard Problem.
The meaning of the Hard Problem doesn’t depend on satisfying me, since I didn’t invent it. If you want to find out what it is, you need to read Chalmers at some point.