BTW, do not abuse the words "nobody" and "everyone" so easily — Alkis Piskas

Yeah, that's my mistake.

Number 2 is created (produced, calculated) by the calculator, which has been programmed by us to do that. Then it is created a second time, as it is displayed on a LED or other display — Alkis Piskas

I don't disagree with this at all, depending on how we define "create" and "2". I am guessing my usage of create is just different - bringing something into existence that did not exist before.

Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being — Alkis Piskas

Agreed, but when the number 2 is displayed on an LED, it is no longer a concept of "2". This is by definition.

Overall, I think language/semantics can provide barriers in us understanding each other. Yet ofc we wouldn't be able to understand each other without it. Dissecting your post (and others as well) just helped broaden my way of looking at things. So thanks for sharing.

Totally different! Numbers are created by Man. Consciousness is not. Numbers are mathematical objects used to count, measure, etc. Consciousness is a state. — Alkis Piskas

This is not true. Numbers are not created by man. As you saw in my original post, "create" means to bring into existence. If man did not exist, the abstract concept of numbers would still exist, just not the word. Also to point out that numbers as a mathematical object is different than consciousness as a state doesn't change anything. Both can be viewed as mathematical objects in which operations or events can be performed. In fact, in computers, numbers, states, and even rasterized images all come in the same form (bits).

Totally different! We are asking how, calculate etc., using our mind. Conscious experience means that we are aware of that. — Alkis Piskas

I was trying to make an analogy with A) a calculator adding 1 + 1 to get 2 and B) physical material creating consciousness. I am sure nobody believes that the number 2 gets "created" when we add 1 + 1 in a calculator. It seems obvious. However some people believe that physical material can "create" consciousness. My argument is that both numbers and consciousness are abstract.

I cannot see anything referring to "Solution to the hard problem of consciousness", which is the title of your topic. What kind of solution are you referring to or aiming at — Alkis Piskas

There isn't any "solution" proposed in my post. It was really meant to be click-bait. Rather the approach that I take to the "hard problem of consciousness" is that our understanding of consciousness might be lacking something. The question on how the physical can "create" consciousness is absurd to me. It is like asking how when we put 1 + 1 in a physical calculator, we "create" the number 2. Because we know that's now how "creation" and "existence" works.

I hope that clarifies my argument

It seems there's no reason to suppose that packing more and more information-processing functions into a program would ever yield the sort of "subjective character" of experience that's said to generate the hard problem of consciousness.

John Searle has provided influential arguments along these lines dating back to 1980. ...

...But the simulation of mental states is no more a mental state than the simulation of an explosion is itself an explosion. — John Searle — Cabbage Farmer

I believe there is reason to suppose that a program can yield experience. We understand that our brains are information-processing system comprised of neurons that have functional properties. This is sort of the foundation of neural networks in machine learning. I think it's reasonable to suppose that one day a very advanced / trained artificial neural network will be accustomed to self-reflection and discussing their own "experiences" and how things "look" to them. I don't think we should distinguish the physical process of the neurons in our brains to that of transistors.

Also, John Searle's argument seem to say nothing about the simulation of the mental state or of an explosion. A simulation of an explosion may or may not be an explosion.

Isn't it the same world the? How can a material brain, body, and universe exist without the creature seeing, for example, colors, or the world around them? Faces would have no meaning as there is nothing to express. — GraveItty

Yes I suspect it is the same world then. My position is that thinking that a material brain, physics, and universe needs an experiencing creature to see colors, hear sounds, etc, is just an assumption. @Marchesks comment explains how that would look.

The p-zombie argument is that all that neural and biological activity could take place in principle without there being experiences of color, sound, pain, etc — Marchesk

This is the first time I am hearing of the philosophical zombie argument so thanks for referencing this. I think I'll start reading up on this to see what other philosophers have to say about this.

Philosophical speculations can't solve scientific problems. — 180 Proof

Yes I agree. But not everything is solvable, not everything is a problem, and I suppose that not everything is physical. I also would not use the word speculation, but rather interpretation. I think philosophical interpretations of reality can move us in a certain direction and have application in real life. I think the interpretations of consciousness especially will be really important in the next few years in society especially with the growth of artificial/computational intelligence and machine learning.

Oh, you can imagine a world like you do, but it is just a soul depleted world, you have extracted the matter of the universe only, without its content, and placed it in an Imaginary world.

How will you ever explain the colors you see, the sounds that you hear, or the feeling of music that makes you cry? — GraveItty

I don't believe that the world/scenario that I mentioned is more or less imaginary than the one we currently live in. Nor do I think it makes a difference in explaining colors, sounds, and all other experiences because these things are not explainable by the "matter" in the first place. This is why I proposed the thought experiment.

When I give this scenario a bit more thought, all of the colors, sounds, feelings, and other experiences that I feel, actually seems more explainable.

Welcome to the forum. — T Clark

Thank you

Very interesting quote from Nagel. I am not well read on philosophy or even history so this is very insightful.

But a connection between the two is obviously there. If I experience whatever conscious quality, then there is a material counterpart in the brain — GraveItty

What if this connection is just a sort of coincidence?

because modern culture is so reliant on that implicit subject-object framework, it can't come to terms with this fact. That's why modern thinking is generally convinced that only what exists 'out there somewhere', in time and space, can be real. That is what leads to 'eliminative materialism', the idea that there really is no such thing as consciousness per se — Wayfarer

This is along my line of thinking. We know consciousness exists and we also can see how it cannot be explained materialistically, so maybe all we can do as philosophers is interpret what this means. I don't think interpretations can count as a scientific proof but maybe it gives insight on the reality beyond what can be explained physical. Sort of how the different interpretations of quantum mechanics can help us understand reality in a different way.

The explanatory gap is a scientific problem, not a philosophical aporia, because it concerns explaining facts of the matter which philosophy does / can not; therefore philosophers can only propose woo-of-the-explanatory-gap nonsense — 180 Proof

Isn't the issue that there is nothing to explain the gap between physical and experience? And in that case I think we should consider philosophers interpretations on the matter. By definition these can be sufficient explanations.

Consciousness simply can't be explained. Only experienced — GraveItty

Why is that?

What do you all think about the following thought experiment:
Imagine a physical universe of space and time exactly like ours in which all of the same laws of physics apply and all of the same events occur but in this universe there is no conscious "experience". Meaning that there are plenty of books and discussions between philosophers and scientists about consciousness and experiences but no real "observer" in any of these scenarios.