Please tell me how to find the truth about the hard problem of consciousness. I'm slowly going crazy

whoops, meant to make a new thread, kek. I'll try again tomorrow

>hard problem of consciousness
Doesn't exist. We are all robots,
it just is that what a robot can do, is hugely underestimated.

how did you manage this

How do you think?

not having Veeky Forums x?

n.e. way mandela effect is dumb and its a cool new meme for the kids which is why they dont treat it like a proper conspiracy thee oh ree and chuck it in th bin

figure out how the neuron works in exact detail down to the atomic level.

then thats it.

1. We don't know for sure, yet, and that's OK.

2. Dennett's book is pretty good but not a complete answer. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

3. My personal opinion is that a lot of the specialness of consciousness will turn out to be illusion designed to make us think our lives and feelings matter and to act on those feelings. Like the way people feel they have a direct perception of the presence of God. Or the way pseudo-philosopher William Lane Craig claims to directly experience the passage of absolute time thus disproving the theory of relativity.

Consciousness doesn't exist. Free will is an illusion, you are receiving a significant and nearly incomprehensible amount of external stimuli constantly.

Further it is soluble. At some point we will, I believe, be able to point to a configuration of neurons and say: that is why you say that you experience the greenness of green or whatever qualia / free will / consciousness; that fully explains it.

Some like Chalmers will claim that, even though we can show that people saying they have such subjective experiences is only due to atoms, there is still a problem that is not causally related to your behavior, because of infallible introspection.

But the problem is that we know introspection is unreliable and there is not a shred of evidence that anything goes on in the brain that cannot be accounted for by leptons and quarks.

You can't empirically validate intersubjectivity.

You can't disprove solipsism, either, which is the reason it exists - it's a joke philosophy intended to teach the lesson that some things are fundamentally not provable or disprovable (falsifiable).

I'm an empiricist because it requires the fewest number of axioms to be taken "on faith"; namely, the unfalsifiable belief that the universe I observe corresponds to an objective reality. That's what I find comforting. You might be better off just joining a religion, though.

>t. constantly suicidal schizophrenic