I don’t know!
I don’t like the whole formulation of “Hard Problem” because it looks so arrogant: it is assumed that all possible computational solution to question “how can conscious behaviour be produced” are so trivial, that they can’t provide answer to “why we have subjective experience”. Let’s find computational solution for conscious behavior first and check that we won’t find any unexpected insights that make us say “wow, this is really obvious mundane way to produce conscious experience”.
The hard problem argument only says that some problems are harder than others, not that they are impossible.
The mundane approach had been tried over and over. When you say that a mundane solution exists , you seem to mean that the thing that hasn’t worked for decades will start working.
By “mundane solution” I mean “deep gear-level understanding of functional aspects of consciousness, such as someone who has such understanding can program functionally-conscious entity from scratch”. Claim of “Hard Problem” is “even if you have such understanding, you can’t explain subjective experience” and I consider this claim to be false.
I agree that if you can use a non trial-and-error method to build consciousness, then you understand it well enough.
But do you have a non trial-and-error method for building something that has conscious experience? Or are you assuming you get it for free with the rest of the functionality?
I don’t know! I don’t like the whole formulation of “Hard Problem” because it looks so arrogant: it is assumed that all possible computational solution to question “how can conscious behaviour be produced” are so trivial, that they can’t provide answer to “why we have subjective experience”. Let’s find computational solution for conscious behavior first and check that we won’t find any unexpected insights that make us say “wow, this is really obvious mundane way to produce conscious experience”.
The hard problem argument only says that some problems are harder than others, not that they are impossible.
The mundane approach had been tried over and over. When you say that a mundane solution exists , you seem to mean that the thing that hasn’t worked for decades will start working.
By “mundane solution” I mean “deep gear-level understanding of functional aspects of consciousness, such as someone who has such understanding can program functionally-conscious entity from scratch”. Claim of “Hard Problem” is “even if you have such understanding, you can’t explain subjective experience” and I consider this claim to be false.
I agree that if you can use a non trial-and-error method to build consciousness, then you understand it well enough.
But do you have a non trial-and-error method for building something that has conscious experience? Or are you assuming you get it for free with the rest of the functionality?
It’s plausible that reverse-engineering the human mind requires tools that are much more powerful than the human mind.