Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "" video.

@Kenjuudo No, it is, indeed, a problem. And a problem don't suggest is has a solution: e.g. the end of the universe is a problem for all living beings, yet it is innevitable, it has no solution. The end. Next, the problem was never about how you "call things", it's about things we directly perceive in our everyday lives and how they LEAD to this distinction naturally, I don't need to assume your premises when the simpler case (which is, those things, neurophysiological brain processes in third person and the ontology of consciousness in first person, are in fact obviously distinct) is self-evident. Saying "everything is a process" also does not solves the problem, it only masks it.
5
@havenbastion There is, obviously, a hard problem.
2
@Kenjuudo I'm treating as if it implies ontological separation because it [does imply] that, this not only is obvious from a very immediate observation, it is already well defended in the pom literature (see, for example, Searle view on the topic in minds, brains and science). It's an "assumption" as saying "the sky is blue" is an assumption, we don't just assume it, we know it is because we see it, it's part of the very nature of perception itself. You can say those things are "different vantage points on the same recursive structure", it says literally nothing about the problem at hand unless you remove this fundamental part of human experience from your equation. And it is, indeed, a dodge, something people were trying to do for a long time now (see for example, the weak attempt of Skinner to frame subjective consciousness as "the world behind the skin", his behavior is your process here).
2
@Kenjuudo No, it's not, this is just how [you] are defining your opponent views, it is a very basic disctinction made by dozens of phillosophers to this day. Also, what are you defining "feeling" as when you say ""The split between "inner" and "outer" is what recursive modeling feels like - not what reality actually is". What is "feeling"? What is your definition of "illusion"? How you are avoiding the inherent dependency that those two concepts have with the subjective conscious experience?
2
You are not measuring qualia, however, you are measuring brain activity that correlates with qualia. We can [assume] that those correlations are sufficient to induce the same result (i.e. two people experiencing similar qualia), but this solves nothing about the hard problem of consciousness, it's kinda literally just a sandwich of nothing but "well, this is interesting, those people have probably similar experiences", it says nothing about what those experiences intrinsically are, nor why they exist or how they exist, it is just what it looks like.
1