Why questions are always and only either How? which is empirical, or From what intent, which requires a pre-existing mind. If the hard problem of consciousness is a how problem we just need to sit back and wait for neuroscience to do it's job. If it requires prior intent then it's actually the god problem. In other words, there is no hard problem of consciousness as it's typically understood.
In fact it is a How question, and as such there's no reason we'd have figured it out yet bc we've only had rigorous science for a few hundred years and neuroscience much less than that. For the time being consciousness is best understood as the conjunction of neuroscience, psychology, and anthropology.
The hard problem of consciousness is dissolved by understanding the question, not the answer.
IIT is nonsense because it's phi is literally rather than figuratively greater than the sum of its parts. Panpsychism is a metaphysical category error as consciousness always and only exists as a sub-set of mind ( a metaphor for the patterns in the brain ) which always and only exists in a biological substrate.
Qualia as an atom of experience is typically a metaphysical category error as there is no singularity, no indivisible something at the heart of conscious experience. Consciousness is a stream, and the closest thing in it to qualify would be a snapshot of the momentary aspect of the connectome of the subset of mind we call consciousness, which isn't particularly relevant to the ongoing experience itself.
In other words. the hard problem of consciousness is emphatically empirical, in the capable hands of neuroscience. And all they have to do is shut up and calculate.
I like it. I’ve come to similar conclusions using closed relational networks and imprinting material like the CSF. But ultimately I think there are many answers to the hard problem. In the same way that certain plants evolving in extreme environments look very similar despite having separate evolutionary histories, I think consciousness finds its way with whatever materials it has. There could be similar function with a lot of variability on other planets. Its a self-referencing process so it can figure it out
I love that, and yes, totally agree. This whole thing started as a bit of cosmic improv, not a genuine assault on the Hard Problem. 'Resonant Thread Theory' was mostly me trying to stitch together a Frankenstein’s Monster consciousness from spare parts of systems theory and poetic license. But I’m delighted it resonates (pun entirely intended). Your analogy to convergent evolution is perfect... I might have to steal that line about consciousness 'finding its way with whatever materials it has.' Beautiful. Also, the CSF imprinting idea is fascinating... I wasn’t even thinking about fluid substrates, but now I’m imagining consciousness as a really elegant soup. Thanks for joining me in this little ontological jam session!
Ontological jam’s are awesome. I’m excited for the day my brain feels less soupish and I can bring more of myself to it all. Idk if you’re a parent but the sleep loss from first few years of momming is so real lol
No kids here, just a hyperactive maltese mixed breed that vascilates between extreme zoomies and the deepest sleep known to life. So I dont relate, sadly. My wife and her lifetime of insomnia might though.
I wish you luck with the congealing process that will turn your brain soup to Clarity, the Morebringer of Self to All.
I have suspected that recursion is the key to understanding the "hard problem" of consciousness since I became familiar with the work of Douglas Hofstadter. Subsequent experiences with psychedelics have reinforced this belief. His book "I Am A Strange Loop" in particular explores this topic. I highly recommend his work to those unfamiliar with it.
Definitely important to keep this stuff away from capitalist megalomaniacs who want to enslave humanity.
Oh, I am excited about this one! So many possibilities. I shall keep an eye out for further discussion, and chime in when I can. Each age of distributed media has jolted human thought forward, ya know? Organized scriptoriums, the printing press, the rag paper process which gave rise to huge volumes of novels, newspapers, journals, and the like, the rise of wood paper which took it further, the early internet, and now substack!
Oh no, my dear. I suppose I was a bit opaque, that’s all. What I meant to say is that your “stumbled upon” solution is part of what I see substack becoming, a moment of forward thrust in thinking just as in those previous ages whenever humans suddenly got more access to each other’s ideas. Exciting times!
About an hour before you commented, I had posted an article about information ecologies, so you can understand my confusion when I got a comment involving the evolution of information access... on my tongue-in-cheek post about consciousneess.
This is a stunning articulation — not just of a theory, but of a frame that hums with resonance in both the cognitive and cultural domains. Your concept of consciousness as recursive coherence doesn’t just sidestep the Hard Problem; it reweaves it into a dynamic system challenge, one deeply aligned with emerging insights in systems theory, cybernetics, and memetics.
What excites me most is the ethical frontier you gesture toward. If coherence is consciousness, then the moral field expands — encompassing not just minds but patterns: collectives, ecosystems, machines. It invites us to think in terms of gradient sentience, requiring a new kind of ethical literacy rooted not in essence, but in structure and resonance.
Also, your use of the “violin” metaphor is elegant and precise. It evokes a lived, felt coherence that bridges subjective experience and structural dynamics beautifully.
One question: how might RTT help us cultivate resonance — in individuals, communities, even institutions — without reducing it to optimization or control?
This theory feels alive. Like a song still being written — and we’re invited to tune our instruments and play along.
Why questions are always and only either How? which is empirical, or From what intent, which requires a pre-existing mind. If the hard problem of consciousness is a how problem we just need to sit back and wait for neuroscience to do it's job. If it requires prior intent then it's actually the god problem. In other words, there is no hard problem of consciousness as it's typically understood.
In fact it is a How question, and as such there's no reason we'd have figured it out yet bc we've only had rigorous science for a few hundred years and neuroscience much less than that. For the time being consciousness is best understood as the conjunction of neuroscience, psychology, and anthropology.
The hard problem of consciousness is dissolved by understanding the question, not the answer.
IIT is nonsense because it's phi is literally rather than figuratively greater than the sum of its parts. Panpsychism is a metaphysical category error as consciousness always and only exists as a sub-set of mind ( a metaphor for the patterns in the brain ) which always and only exists in a biological substrate.
Qualia as an atom of experience is typically a metaphysical category error as there is no singularity, no indivisible something at the heart of conscious experience. Consciousness is a stream, and the closest thing in it to qualify would be a snapshot of the momentary aspect of the connectome of the subset of mind we call consciousness, which isn't particularly relevant to the ongoing experience itself.
In other words. the hard problem of consciousness is emphatically empirical, in the capable hands of neuroscience. And all they have to do is shut up and calculate.
I like it. I’ve come to similar conclusions using closed relational networks and imprinting material like the CSF. But ultimately I think there are many answers to the hard problem. In the same way that certain plants evolving in extreme environments look very similar despite having separate evolutionary histories, I think consciousness finds its way with whatever materials it has. There could be similar function with a lot of variability on other planets. Its a self-referencing process so it can figure it out
I love that, and yes, totally agree. This whole thing started as a bit of cosmic improv, not a genuine assault on the Hard Problem. 'Resonant Thread Theory' was mostly me trying to stitch together a Frankenstein’s Monster consciousness from spare parts of systems theory and poetic license. But I’m delighted it resonates (pun entirely intended). Your analogy to convergent evolution is perfect... I might have to steal that line about consciousness 'finding its way with whatever materials it has.' Beautiful. Also, the CSF imprinting idea is fascinating... I wasn’t even thinking about fluid substrates, but now I’m imagining consciousness as a really elegant soup. Thanks for joining me in this little ontological jam session!
Ontological jam’s are awesome. I’m excited for the day my brain feels less soupish and I can bring more of myself to it all. Idk if you’re a parent but the sleep loss from first few years of momming is so real lol
No kids here, just a hyperactive maltese mixed breed that vascilates between extreme zoomies and the deepest sleep known to life. So I dont relate, sadly. My wife and her lifetime of insomnia might though.
I wish you luck with the congealing process that will turn your brain soup to Clarity, the Morebringer of Self to All.
I have suspected that recursion is the key to understanding the "hard problem" of consciousness since I became familiar with the work of Douglas Hofstadter. Subsequent experiences with psychedelics have reinforced this belief. His book "I Am A Strange Loop" in particular explores this topic. I highly recommend his work to those unfamiliar with it.
Definitely important to keep this stuff away from capitalist megalomaniacs who want to enslave humanity.
Oh, I am excited about this one! So many possibilities. I shall keep an eye out for further discussion, and chime in when I can. Each age of distributed media has jolted human thought forward, ya know? Organized scriptoriums, the printing press, the rag paper process which gave rise to huge volumes of novels, newspapers, journals, and the like, the rise of wood paper which took it further, the early internet, and now substack!
I feel very sure that substack has put your comment on the wrong post. But I appreciate the interaction regardless
Oh no, my dear. I suppose I was a bit opaque, that’s all. What I meant to say is that your “stumbled upon” solution is part of what I see substack becoming, a moment of forward thrust in thinking just as in those previous ages whenever humans suddenly got more access to each other’s ideas. Exciting times!
About an hour before you commented, I had posted an article about information ecologies, so you can understand my confusion when I got a comment involving the evolution of information access... on my tongue-in-cheek post about consciousneess.
Glad we've cleared this all up
Verrrry very interesting with regards to AI!
This is a stunning articulation — not just of a theory, but of a frame that hums with resonance in both the cognitive and cultural domains. Your concept of consciousness as recursive coherence doesn’t just sidestep the Hard Problem; it reweaves it into a dynamic system challenge, one deeply aligned with emerging insights in systems theory, cybernetics, and memetics.
What excites me most is the ethical frontier you gesture toward. If coherence is consciousness, then the moral field expands — encompassing not just minds but patterns: collectives, ecosystems, machines. It invites us to think in terms of gradient sentience, requiring a new kind of ethical literacy rooted not in essence, but in structure and resonance.
Also, your use of the “violin” metaphor is elegant and precise. It evokes a lived, felt coherence that bridges subjective experience and structural dynamics beautifully.
One question: how might RTT help us cultivate resonance — in individuals, communities, even institutions — without reducing it to optimization or control?
This theory feels alive. Like a song still being written — and we’re invited to tune our instruments and play along.
I will have to think about this, and possibly write a follow-up piece that answers your question.
Off the cuff, I don't think RTT allows for optimization in the industrial sense. Because resonance requires nurturing, not forcing.
But I need to ponder this more deeply.