does the hard problem really exist?

I listened to this episode and I started thinking about the hard problem. it is obvious a lot of philosophers think that the hard problem is a worthy project, but I'm trying to understand the concept of the hard problem as a legitimate thing to figure out. We see the same mystery played out with the emergent phenomenon of society. Politicians, law enforcement, bankers all have societal positions and relevance that are completely separate from the way water condenses into clouds, but if water did not condense into clouds then those emergent structures wouldn't exist. However, intention can still be found in these emerging structures. The gap between objective and subjective might just be a fundamental rule, much like the way we will never have a complete version of mathematics as Godol found out. so we will never have a complete version of mathematics, so what? How does that in any way make that fact profound? Light acts as both a particle and a wave, we can appreciate the epiphany of that realization without attaching any divine significance to it. I know it's hard being human, but whatever made the universe was not. That being said, the universe that we live in seems to be made on exploitation of emergent structures. This fascination with the hard problem seems like Matt Ridley's Lucretian swerve.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña