# Does the "Hard Problem" relate at all to people's existential struggles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Philosophy of Mind\ **Created:** [August 10, 2026, 9:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217 "2026-08-10T21:12:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Geoff\_Dann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/dfb087/32.png) [@Geoff\_Dann](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Geoff_Dann)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2026, 8:05am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/21 "2026-08-12T08:05:31Z")
> [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > it seems to me that the “Hard Problem” gives the green light to an incredible array of basically nonsense speculation and claims, that need to be sorted out. Worst of them being along the lines of all the various flavors of dismissing the “Self” and cheering for mysterianism. Yes, a lot of people leap straight from the HP (which is very real) to all sort of conclusions which do not follow, and many of which make no more sense than the physicalist position being rejected. The “there is no self” crowd tend to be wannabe spiritual teachers who are regurgitating Eastern / New Age ideas without any real authority or depth. In my experience/estimation, nearly everybody who claims to have this sort of spiritual insight and development is a fraud. All they’ve done is allow their ego to get bloated on how deeply spiritual they are (i.e. how spiritually and intellectually superior they are to everybody else). I can’t stand it, personally. Talking the talk is easy, walking the walk is much harder, and those who actually manage to do so do not generally go around blowing their own trumpet about how spiritually developed they are. _If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him._ > [@](#): > > So **can anyone over here offer me an explanatory bridge between the Hard Problem and a humanity’s personal efforts to achieve a rational visceral understanding of Who Am I?** Or am I simply barking up the wrong tree? You aren’t barking up the wrong tree, no. But I believe the answer is complicated by having two answers. The self is very real, and it is as brain-dependent as the physicalists think it is. What they get wrong is the claim that brains are also sufficient. This is where the HP matters – it tells us that even if we have a brain-based self, this is not enough to account for subjectivity. And this missing thing is not a “soul”, in the sense of something individualised that can be re-incarnated. Rather there is only one Soul, and every conscious being (animals and humans) shares it. So who are you? You are the Void (Brahman, the One) _being your brain_. Meditation is an attempt to shut down the brain enough to directly experience the deeper identity. But at the end of your meditation you are still yourself (i.e. a dynamically updating self-model encoded in your brain). In other words, instead of trying to rid yourself of your self, just try to make yourself the best version of yourself you can be. Acceptance, not self-destruction. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2026, 9:07am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/22 "2026-08-12T09:07:52Z")
> [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Also, what do you mean by “figuring out my own Self”. The word ‘my’ implies ownership. So, who is the ‘my’ who owns (that) Self, exactly. > > Me, myself and I. My point seems to have been lost, or missed. The word “myself”, to me, is an oxymoron or self-contradiction. Who and/or what is the ‘self’ that owns “my” ‘self’. Again, the word ‘my’ implies ownership. So, if there is a ‘self’ and a ‘my’, then it is implied that there is an owner of ‘that self’. Just like, for example, ‘my house’ or ‘my car’ implies that there is an owner of ‘that house’ and ‘that car’. So, ‘we’ could say that a ‘human being’ is the owner of ‘a house’ and ‘a car’, but who and/or what is or could be the owner of ‘a self’, exactly? That is, if the word ‘self’ itself is referring to a ‘human being’ anyway. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > I inhabit the realization that my body Here also are the words ‘my body’. So, who and/or what could be ‘the owner’ of ‘my body’, exactly? The word ‘body’ is usually associated with ‘human being’, already. So, who and/or what owns a ‘human body’, exactly? (By the way, ‘I’ already know the answers. ‘I’ am just putting these questions out here for people to think about and consider.) > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > I inhabit the realization that my body contains half a billion years worth of 100% successful generational handoff. Every incarnation (dependent on &) carrying with it the cumulative lessons of all the generations that came before. In the days when this is being written, I would like to add ‘the lessons’ still have not yet been learned and understood. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > By my twenties I also had a keen realization that my body contains knowledge, protocols and strategies way beyond my conscious mind’s awareness. It instilled an appreciation that my body knows more than I do, and it would behove me to learn about it and pay close attention. I agree, wholeheartedly, that within the body, like within ‘dna’ there is information, which I also call the ‘unconscious knowing’ within ‘us’ all. That is, until it is ‘tapped’, and becomes ‘consciously known’ or aware of, holds some of the so-called “mysteries of Life”, by the way. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > At about 4 years old I asked my mom: Who is God? - her answer: “A spec of dust that wanted to be more.” Blew me away in real time and it became a question, challenge that I would often chew on it as the years sped by. Okay, but ‘we’ seem to be drifting away from who and what the words ‘my’, ‘self’, ‘Self’, and ‘I’ refers to, exactly, which supposedly has “their” own bodies, houses, cars, ‘conscious mind’s awareness’, etcetera. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > The upshot is that looking back from 71, I believe that Mom’s answer satisfied and filled that “longing for god” niche within our human heart and mind. Do ‘you’ mean ‘your’ and not ‘our’, human heart and mind? By the way, the human heart longs for nothing, or has no longing for anything, and there is NO human mind anyway. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Instead, I’ve come to appreciate that _‘God’s psychic niche’_ was filled and satisfied with that challenge. 1. What challenge? 2. What do you mean by ‘God’s psychic niche’? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Because it conveyed the sense that it was up to me to do something with myself. ‘I’ think ‘you’ have drifted so far away now ‘I’ am not sure how to get ‘you’ back on track. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > That went down before I even entered kindergarten, so that all I’ve experienced in life is build upon that foundation. What was the actual ‘foundation’, exactly, that ALL that ‘you’ have experienced was built upon? Was ‘it’ what “your mom” told ‘you’ about “God being a spec of dust that wanted to be more”? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > When I say “I am a filament in Earth’s pageant of Evolution.” How often do ‘you’ say ‘this’, and, have ‘you’ said ‘this’ in this forum before? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > It’s backed up with a mindscape jam packed with biological evolutionary understanding and appreciation, including a sense for deep time. So, is the answer to the question, “Who am ‘I’?” “I am a filament in earth’s pageant of evolution”? And, is ‘this answer’ the final answer for once and for all, because ‘that answer’ is backed up by what you just said and wrote here? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > It’s difficult for me to look at anything without including thoughts of its past history and future trajectory. Okay. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > I step onto a jet plane and I’m a ten year old again, head glued to the window striving to savor the landscape as it rolls by and enthralled by the magic of flight and the amazing organizational achievement that an airport is. While I look around, I see most people seem oblivious to all of it. \> I find that sad and indicative of our general apathy, which explains the why/how we dropped the ball, that is paving the way for another failed empire. What ‘empire’ is that, exactly, that you are referring to here? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > I’ve wrestled with my demons, and died on that cross of my own making, and managed to be reborn a better person. That experience taught me what the passion of Jesus was all about, and why he has remained such a vital presence in people’s lives. It’s because he does represent the best in a human. What many of us would like to strive for. Jesus’s life’s lessons show us how to deal with our own life’s challenges. What are that one person’s “life’s lessons”, exactly? And, what your own life’s challenges, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Then about eight years ago walking my Maddy dog I was hit with another petite epiphany, the Human Mind(scape) ~ Physical Reality divide. Funny how that works, it’s not like I wasn’t familiar with the concept. I simply wasn’t prepared for its full import - until that day. > > It was like a bolt of lightening thundering through my being. Who and/or what is this ‘my’ word referring to, which ‘now’ has ‘a being’? And, what is ‘a being’, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Of course, everything I experience, learn, know, has been processed through my evolved body, and gets processed into thoughts and mind. Okay, but what was this ‘other epiphany’, exactly? And, what were the prior ones before ‘this one’? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Here again, it wasn’t like a new concept, I’ve known about it for decades - but my ground wasn’t fertile enough for it to take root. you have known about ‘what’, exactly, for decades? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > How do I know “I’ve arrived” it comes from the feeling of peace and satisfaction in a life dedicated to helping this “dunce” (other’s label for me, not my own) figure out what life was about. I am not sure if I missed ‘it’, but what are you talking about here, exactly? And, where did you “arrive” at, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2026, 9:12am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/23 "2026-08-12T09:12:03Z")
> [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Would you first care to share what your own personal understanding of the so-called “hard problem” here is exactly? > > Simply put, > > The Hard Problem - is the explanatory gap between biology and personal feeling/consciousness. > > It is the **“~”** in the “Human Mind ~ Physical Reality” divide To me, there is NO divide. ---
**Author:** ![Citizenschallenge](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/citizenschallenge/32/1027_2.png) [@Citizenschallenge](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Citizenschallenge)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2026, 8:23pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/24 "2026-08-12T20:23:21Z")
> [@j\_j](#): > > Mouth belief is “alienated” when it floats above and disconnected from “meat belief.” This alienation is an inherited tradition. I like the metaphor. > [@j\_j](#): > > But the “inside qualia stuff” is a mystery if not an embarrasment. From and Earth-centrist bottom-up evolutionary perspective qualia is the living moment of now, literally coursing though my biological moment. > [@Geoff\_Dann](#): > > If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. 😁 Or at least turn the other way. > [@ages](#): > > Who and/or what is the ‘self’ that owns “my” ‘self’. It’s the biology that creates my insides and the body that takes me from birth to death. My mind is simply the inside of my body communication with itself, in the act of negotiating a difficult unforgiving world. By body has a half a billion years worth of experience and learning within it, my mind has the cumulative total of all the experience of my lived-experience within it. > [@ages](#): > > Okay, but ‘we’ seem to be drifting away from who and what the words ‘my’, ‘self’, ‘Self’, and ‘I’ refers to, exactly, which supposedly has “their” own bodies, houses, cars, ‘conscious mind’s awareness’, etcetera. Yeah that was just a little insight into why I look at most thing differently that others. I don’t get the confusion, your self is the meat and blood, sweat, and tears. I don’t understand why that doesn’t suffice? > [@ages](#): > > Do ‘you’ mean ‘your’ and not ‘our’, human heart and mind? > > By the way, the human heart longs for nothing, or has no longing for anything, and there is NO human mind anyway. Let’s not get too picky, heart a rhetorical label we don’t need to haggle over. It the emotions and the being alone and memories of mom that create the fertile ground for our minds to create god. > [@ages](#): > > 1. What do you mean by ‘God’s psychic niche’? That obsession with God that permeates all human beings. Even for most atheists, It the rejection of God, that seems central. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate there are other God neutral, “it just don’t matter, never on my mind” people around, but it sure seems we’re a distinct minority. Who’s running the US government lately? But it’s a totally natural thing. God was born in the bosom, viscera, heart, dealing with an awareness of the difficult, unforgiving, lonely world. The human spirit requires others, we are social animals, and we are animals filled with an imaginative mind and social pressures, existential pressures. Like a child needs a favor it doll! Especially when things get scary. Why holding hands created something moderns can’t even imagine. Though we still do it, but it matters less in our world. Do you talk to yourself? I’ll bet most humans have alway had an ongoing dialogue with themselves. Were you born and weaned by a mother, who still brings back memories of warmth and safety to mind. Think about what a God provided, or what belief in Jesus provides, a partner that’s always there when you long for him. Always willing to listen, and provide comfort and advice. It’s like if gods didn’t exist we’d create them in our own minds. Wrapped around an amalgam of loving safe memories, support and advice as we deal with a scary lonely unforgiving world. The connection and progression seems almost self-evident to me. It’s like I’m the last one to dispute the existence of supernatural gods. Though I will insist they are part of our mind-scape. Not the physical biological realm As real or unreal–as one decides for themself. I simply believe we should be clear and honest with ourselves about it and admit as much - finally take responsibility for ourselves. > [@ages](#): > > ‘I’ think ‘you’ have drifted so far away now ‘I’ am not sure how to get ‘you’ back on track. Indeed conversations drift, it’s all connected. > [@ages](#): > > What was the actual ‘foundation’, exactly, that ALL that ‘you’ have experienced was built upon? That I looked at the things of this world differently and followed a path that exposed me to a parade of experiences and lessons others haven’t experienced. Now that you have me on the spot, how to express it?.. Most folks are wrapped up in careers and modern living and such, and I’m a different kind of species. It was simply a sharing. > [@ages](#): > > Was ‘it’ what “your mom” told ‘you’ about “God being a spec of dust that wanted to be more”? Sorry I don’t want to do this, it was explained clearly the first time, simply reread it. Instead of an idol with tons of stories that had meaning and were important, I had a weird riddle, and a challenge to be more, and a drive to see, experience and understand. And it was viscerally important to this young that was still biology on its way to making an adult. No room in there anywhere for a God to take my hand, from the get go. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > When I say “I am a filament in Earth’s pageant of Evolution.” Because that is an important key. It reflects a deep down “owning” of the fact that we humans are made of the same stuff as all the other creatures around us and before us. That is big. Imagine an emotional connection to nature, rather than . . . What a wonderful world it might have been. But of course it’s anathema to society where people take pride in “too much is never enough.” And guess my that story about me, because it explains who I am and what I’m writing about. > [@ages](#): > > So, is the answer to the question, “Who am ‘I’?” “I am a filament in earth’s pageant of evolution”? > And, is ‘this answer’ the final answer for once and for all, because ‘that answer’ is backed up by what you just said and wrote here? No, no. You simply don’t get it. It isn’t about an intellectual philosophical supposition, it is about a personal emotional relationship. It is something either you feel or you don’t. “Feeling it” requires a deep understanding of evolution and how your body formed over the eons, among other matters. Hopefully a wave to some others who might be able to relate to the feeling of nature as part of one’s family, as oppose to empty words. That cannot be taught or argued. > [@ages](#): > > What ‘empire’ is that, exactly, that you are referring to here? How about our current world situation physically and sociologically. > [@ages](#): > > What are that one person’s “life’s lessons”, exactly? The usual stages of life, acton, reaction, cascading consequences, balancing things done right with the things screwed up. Making peace with the competing voices in one’s head and impulse in one’s body. Pretty universal stuff I believe. > [@ages](#): > > And, what your own life’s challenges, exactly? What you want to do an expose’? 😉 > [@ages](#): > > Who and/or what is this ‘my’ word referring to, which ‘now’ has ‘a being’? And, what is ‘a being’, exactly? Sorry was in autobiographical mode, thought it was clear > [@ages](#): > > now’ has ‘a being’? That must be serious philosophical stuff. “My being” is the character who is alive within my body. Are there problems with such a description? Appreciating the > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Human Mind(scape) ~ Physical Reality divide It turns around Descartes “I think therefore I am” into > I am, therefore I think > [@ages](#): > > Okay, but what was this ‘other epiphany’, exactly? Enough. Suffice it to say, life has blessed me with a wonderful parade of experiences. None of the superhuman kind, all having to do with insights driven by scientific learning, and of course, life’s lessons. But a few definitely fitting the bill: > A sudden flash of insight. > A quick understanding of a complex problem. > An unexpected real-life realization. > [@ages](#): > > you have known about ‘what’, exactly, for decades? The great philosophical arguments, and the historic hero’s, and admittedly “Cliff notes sort of glosses” and sugary biographies. Enough to get the questions into my imagination. Just the fact of living on the road and every day a new experience, nothing but hello and good bye, but what a time and how else to really meet people. That kind of living and then in-between alone, drives a person to philosophizing. > [@ages](#): > > I am not sure if I missed ‘it’, but what are you talking about here, exactly? And, where did you “arrive” at, exactly? It. That satisfactory feeling of having arrived, to inhabit the feeling of being at home. Knowing who I am, not through imagination, but through remembered achievements and failures. Feeling at home with myself. Loving at the “I am” of that weird kid long ago, still resides in a little niche that can even come out when a long a good 'ol rock’n roll song that has meaning to me. To think of the lofty goals I made for myself. To know that I did pretty good, and have some solid outside of objective support for such a notion. Being able to balance the horror & rage of what we are doing (and I’ve watch and bemoaned the train of big mistakes that led to this horror show. I can compartmentalize that and ride the waves. Bet I could keep going, but there’s no point to it. It was simply background. > [@ages](#): > > To me, there is NO divide. How’s that work? ---
**Author:** ![Citizenschallenge](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/citizenschallenge/32/1027_2.png) [@Citizenschallenge](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Citizenschallenge)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2026, 8:32pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/25 "2026-08-12T20:32:44Z")
> [@Wayfarer](#): > > What if the appearance of organic life — something able to remember, respond, anticipate and regulate itself — is already the first rudimentary manifestation of consciousness, rather than consciousness being something that suddenly appears much later as a product of increasingly complex brains? I think this is what Reber is talking about. > [@Patterner](#): > > It is inherent? Can you explain that? Well, yeah, I would think so. Explain, you’d be better served by, Lane ([book transformer](https://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2026/01/a-scientific-approach-to-understanding.html), Reber (I really like the video I share and especially that Q/A where I think he pushes back pretty well), and many others > [@Patterner](#): > > Something else? A combination of two or more? > [@Patterner](#): > > Reproduction? Metabolism? Something else? A combination of two or more? I guess it would have to be characteristics of life that all living things share, since, if all life is conscious, vision (for example) which not all life has, could not be a necessary ingredient. Now you’re pushing this upstairs to the big boys. I read a lot and am amazed at the difference breakthroughs and discovers being made and different part of the story, but I am not competent to teach, just to scream it needs to be learned about 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Patterner](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patterner/32/192_2.png) [@Patterner](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Patterner)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2026, 1:47am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/26 "2026-08-13T01:47:39Z")
> [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Now you’re pushing this upstairs to the big boys. I read a lot and am amazed at the difference breakthroughs and discovers being made and different part of the story, but I am not competent to teach, just to scream it needs to be learned about 😉 You may not be able to give the detail the big boys can. But, surely, if you have been convinced that they have proven consciousness is the product of physical things and processes, you have some general understanding of it? Some broad strokes? I’m nothing close to an expert in protein synthesis, but I can give a general outline. DNA is this. Protein is this. Here’s how you get from A to Z. That kind of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Citizenschallenge](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/citizenschallenge/32/1027_2.png) [@Citizenschallenge](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Citizenschallenge)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2026, 3:46am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/27 "2026-08-13T03:46:40Z")
> [@Patterner](#): > > But, surely, if you have been convinced that they have proven consciousness is the product of physical things and processes, you have some general understanding of it? Some broad strokes? I’m nothing close to an expert in protein synthesis, but I can give a general outline. DNA is this. Protein is this. Here’s how you get from A to Z. That kind of thing. It’s a learning curve, and the following has plenty of flaws, something much sharper will be coming up shortly, because of late I’ve been getting some serious coaching. Thanks for asking. [A scientific approach to understanding your “Self” - Nick Lane PhD. A Students Resource.](https://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2026/01/a-scientific-approach-to-understanding.html) [Science is getting closer to the source of consciousness. Nick Lane’s Transformer](https://medium.com/@pmiesler/science-is-getting-closer-to-the-source-of-consciousness-nick-lanes-transformer-4e82d9455d0d) [Considering Things Science Can Explain About Consciousness](https://medium.com/@pmiesler/considering-things-science-can-explain-about-consciousness-903cefa12b39) [Does the Krebs cycle provide the key to unlocking the “Hard Problem”?](https://medium.com/@pmiesler/does-the-krebs-cycle-provide-the-key-to-unlocking-the-hard-problem-b3868c4b6c3f) ---
**Author:** ![Wayfarer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wayfarer/32/123_2.png) [@Wayfarer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Wayfarer)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2026, 4:38am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/28 "2026-08-13T04:38:16Z")
**Does the Krebs cycle provide the key to unlocking the “Hard Problem”?** **My comments** : While the metabolic science described by biochemist Nick Lane is based on empirical observation, the claim that this biochemistry _explains or solves_ the “Hard Problem of Consciousness” is still a leap! Metabolism (via the Krebs cycle) produces a continuous flux of protons and electrons across biological membranes. This flow generates a high electrical potential (a membrane voltage) and localized electromagnetic fields. Biochemists can measure these voltages, charge gradients, and field fluctuations down to the millivolt. That part of it is still **empirical observation**. The leap occurs when you (and to an extent, Nick Lane) suggests that this electrical dynamic or flux doesn’t just _support_ life, but actually “feels like something” or forms the **“stream of consciousness in its most elementary form.”** That is an **inference** , as it can’t be empirically observed. Me, I fully accept it! But I’m still going to ask what is driving this process. Is it still something that can be explained in terms of, or reduced to, physical causation? Or is the appearance of the organism the manifestation of a primitive sense of self? Which is what your sources seem to be saying. So they’re no longer materialist in the pure sense. They’ve already absorbed a phenomenological perspective. And I’m all for that. Recall that the “Hard Problem” (as framed by Chalmers) asks why and how physical processes give rise to subjective, qualitative experience (qualia)—the subjective feeling of seeing red, feeling pain, or “what it is like” to be an organism. But observing an electromagnetic field generated by mitochondria is still an observation of a _physical, quantitative process_. Stating that a collapsing electrical potential “feels like dying” to a bacterium is an attribution of subjective experience to physical dynamics, not proof of that there is such a feeling. What you’re exploring is a framework for grounding consciousness in bioenergetics rather than purely in complex neural computation. And bravo for that! Furthermore that if consciousness has a physical substrate, it might be rooted in the continuous thermodynamic work and membrane potential of living cells rather than just “information processing” in a brain. Bravo again! But regardless, attributing subjective experience (_feeling_) to those physical electrical fields remains an interpretive, philosophical inference, not a demonstrable fact. And why? _Because feelings can only be experienced by the subject who has them_. They are intrinsically subjective. In fact, perhaps these efforts to address the hard problem really amount to an acknowledgement of the cogency of Chalmer’s original argument! The fact that hard-headed biochemists like Nick Lane feel obliged to offer an account of ‘what it is like to be a bacterium’ is a tacit acknowledgement of the cogency of his argument. So it’s not so much a matter of ‘solving a problem’ as ‘acknowledging the challenge that has been posed’. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > **This is my puny challenge to philosophy departments to take notice, and start formulating better, more relevant questions regarding our human condition.** I’m sure they are! Nick Lane’s presentation on Electricity Creates Consciousness was given at IAI, the Institute of Art and Ideas, to which I subscribe. It hosts many conversations with scientists and philosophers - of which Nick Lane is one. All part of the conversation. Again, he’s not the old-school materialism of ‘it’s all just chemistry and physics’. But, again, ‘the human condition’ is a subject much larger than biology alone. We’ve been genetically identical for well on 100,000 years, since the cro magnons emerged. We’re biologically still the same, but, you know, a lot else has changed! ---
**Author:** ![Citizenschallenge](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/citizenschallenge/32/1027_2.png) [@Citizenschallenge](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Citizenschallenge)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2026, 1:46pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/29 "2026-08-13T13:46:23Z")
> [@Wayfarer](#): > > The leap occurs when you (and to an extent, Nick Lane) suggests that this electrical dynamic or flux doesn’t just _support_ life, but actually “feels like something” But that’s not what I’m saying. To use a sloppy analogy think about Ben Franklin, at the time astounding capturing a lightning bolt, inventing the grounding rod. It was still a long road to Edison and Tesla and Marconi - and still a long road to get to New York City at night. What Krebs cycle did was impart a “motive force” that biology was about to use to construct more complex organic molecules, then on ton slowly step my creating the building blocks of complex life. It a signified a supremely important 2nd class of atomic matter, that I believe gets glossed over too easily, fuzzing up our vision. As yes I’ve learn that apparently it doesn’t matter how much biological mechanisms we come up with, somehow it’s been preordained never to enough to meet the expectations of the explanatory gap. So the problem with the Hard Problem goes deeper. > [@Wayfarer](#): > > Stating that a collapsing electrical potential “feels like dying” to a bacterium That’s a misunderstanding. Lane was talking about the electrical potential across membrane barriers, and that it is the condition of that membrane, content function, or disintegrating, or in between, “must feel like something”. > [@Wayfarer](#): > > What you’re exploring is a framework for grounding consciousness in bioenergetics rather than purely in complex neural computation. Definitely, that’s not me talking, that is what various scientific fields are developing. > [@Wayfarer](#): > > But, again, ‘the human condition’ is a subject much larger than biology alone. We’ve been genetically identical for well on 100,000 years, since the cro magnons emerged. We’re biologically still the same, but, you know, a lot else has changed! But I thought we were talking about origins of consciousness? Although bring up the human timeline, a problem is that many don’t bother to make clear the distinction between awareness, consciousness and introspection, so that tends to complication dialogue. Thanks for taking the time to pen that interesting helpful response. Hopefully in a few days I’ll have something less hippy dippy and a bit more grown up and focused on the actual philosophical arguments - as opposed to my incomplete interpretations that I’ve been limited to up to recently. How’s that trope go: seek and ye shall find. See ya around the neighborhood. ---
**Author:** ![Patterner](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patterner/32/192_2.png) [@Patterner](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Patterner)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2026, 4:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/30 "2026-08-13T16:20:18Z")
> [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > As yes I’ve learn that apparently it doesn’t matter how much biological mechanisms we come up with, somehow it’s been preordained never to enough to meet the expectations of the explanatory gap. It’s not that biological mechanisms are preordained to never be enough to meet the expectations of the explanatory gap. It’s simply that no explanation has been given. Saying that it evolved because it gives a survival advantage is not an explanation of how it came to exist and how it works. No amount of detail regarding the biological mechanisms is an explanation of how they are conscious. ---
**Author:** ![Citizenschallenge](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/citizenschallenge/32/1027_2.png) [@Citizenschallenge](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Citizenschallenge)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2026, 8:32pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/31 "2026-08-13T20:32:08Z")
> [@Patterner](#): > > No amount of detail regarding the biological mechanisms is an explanation of how they are conscious. So I’m told. 👍 – ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2026, 4:46am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/32 "2026-08-14T04:46:56Z")
> [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Who and/or what is the ‘self’ that owns “my” ‘self’. > > It’s the biology that creates my insides and the body that takes me from birth to death. So, to see if I have this right and correct, to ‘you’, the ‘self’ is “the biology” that creates what ‘you’ now call “your insides” and “the body” that takes ‘you’ from birth to what you call “death”, correct? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > My mind is simply the inside of my body communication with itself, in the act of negotiating a difficult unforgiving world. Why do you believe that ‘this world’ is what you call a “difficult, unforgiving world”, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > By body has a half a billion years worth of experience and learning within it, my mind has the cumulative total of all the experience of my lived-experience within it. I am not sure HOW 'the biology", that creates the insides of the body and the body itself, has a mind, but anyway. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Okay, but ‘we’ seem to be drifting away from who and what the words ‘my’, ‘self’, ‘Self’, and ‘I’ refers to, exactly, which supposedly has “their” own bodies, houses, cars, ‘conscious mind’s awareness’, etcetera. > > Yeah that was just a little insight into why I look at most thing differently that others. But ‘you’ have not yet explained who and/or what ‘you’, ‘that self’, is, exactly? Which is what ‘I’ was asking and looking for here. WHY ‘you’ ‘look at’ and ‘see’ most things differently from all of the other ‘you’s’ and ‘selves’ I already know. ‘I’ am just seeking out if ‘you’ really do know ‘you’, ‘that self’, and if ‘you’ do, then by how much, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > I don’t get the confusion, your self is the meat and blood, sweat, and tears. What ‘confusion’ are ‘you’ referring to here, exactly? Once more, by ‘you’ writing “your self”, ‘you’ have missed and/or misunderstood all ‘I’ have been saying and pointing out about how the words and terms “myself” and “yourself” are oxymorons and contradictions in terms. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > I don’t understand why that doesn’t suffice? WHY ‘that’ does not suffice is because when some people talk about and use the word ‘self’, they are referring to a ‘person’ or ‘people’, and a ‘person/people’ are NOT the visible physical human body that ‘we’ can ‘look at’ and ‘see’. For the very simple reason that if ‘we’ were to cut off an arm or a leg from a human body, for example, then ‘that person’ does NOT become ‘less of a person’. So, when the word ‘self’ is used, and ‘we’ are referring to a ‘person’, then the “meat, blood, sweat, and tears” are NOT the ‘self’, nor the ‘person’. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Do ‘you’ mean ‘your’ and not ‘our’, human heart and mind? > > > > By the way, the human heart longs for nothing, or has no longing for anything, and there is NO human mind anyway. > > Let’s not get too picky, Why not? ‘We’ are in a philosophy forum after all, and to some people anyway, ‘philosophy’ is about finding Truth, or HOW ‘we’ can come to find and know the Truth of things. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > heart a rhetorical label we don’t need to haggle over. ‘you’ are absolutely free to say what you do not mean, and, to mean what you do not say. But, then some people wonder WHY there is still so much misunderstanding in ‘the world’ and WHY they are, still, searching out and looking for answers, and/or the truth. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > It the emotions and the being alone and memories of mom that create the fertile ground for our minds to create god. But there is NO such thing as “our minds”. Although this claim and fact are very contrary to the popular belief in the days when this is being written. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > 1. What do you mean by ‘God’s psychic niche’? > > That obsession with God that permeates all human beings. WHY do ‘you’ have an obsession with God? And, what even is God, to you, exactly, anyway? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Even for most atheists, It the rejection of God, that seems central. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate there are other God neutral, “it just don’t matter, never on my mind” people around, but it sure seems we’re a distinct minority. Who’s running the US government lately? To be honest, you’ speak and write in a somewhat confusing way, well to me anyway. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Who’s running the US government lately? Human beings. The same things that always have. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > But it’s a totally natural thing. God was born in the bosom, viscera, heart, dealing with an awareness of the difficult, unforgiving, lonely world. The human spirit requires others, we are social animals, and we are animals filled with an imaginative mind and social pressures, existential pressures. Like a child needs a favor it doll! Especially when things get scary. Why holding hands created something moderns can’t even imagine. Though we still do it, but it matters less in our world. > > Do you talk to yourself? I’ll bet most humans have alway had an ongoing dialogue with themselves. ‘We’ can see very clearly, from ‘your writings’, that ‘you’ talk to what ‘you’ “yourself”. Are ‘you’ aware of just how much of ‘this dialogue’ ‘you’ have come across in ‘your writings’ here? ‘you’ speak and write as though ‘you’ already know ‘the answer’ or what ‘you are talking about’ that ‘we’ will automatically also. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Were you born and weaned by a mother, who still brings back memories of warmth and safety to mind. LOL, LOL, LOL your question, without a question mark, here, could not be asking something more further from the actual Truth of things. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Think about what a God provided, or what belief in Jesus provides, a partner that’s always there when you long for him. Who and/or what even is this God thing that you speak of and write about here now, exactly? And, why do you believe that God has male reproductive organs for? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Always willing to listen, and provide comfort and advice. It’s like if gods didn’t exist we’d create them in our own minds. WHY? If “your” mother was a Truly ‘good’ person, for example, then they would have listened to as much as ‘you’, human beings, NEED. Therefore, ‘you’ would NOT be going to other places for what ‘it’ is that ‘you’ ALL Truly need, and want. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Wrapped around an amalgam of loving safe memories, support and advice as we deal with a scary lonely unforgiving world. ‘I’ do NOT see absolutely anything scary, lonely, nor unforgiving in ‘this world’, except, OF COURSE, from what ‘you’ adult human beings do. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > The connection and progression seems almost self-evident to me. Okay, but again, because ‘you’ have an ongoing dialogue with “yourself”, ‘you’ may well have got into a habit of ‘knowing’ what ‘you’ “yourself” are saying and talking about, exactly, whereas ‘I’ do not. So, when ‘you’ speak and write here, like ‘you’ just have, ‘I’ have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what ‘you’ are talking about and meaning. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > It’s like I’m the last one to dispute the existence of supernatural gods. Though I will insist they are part of our mind-scape. Not the physical biological realm What even is this thing that ‘you’ have named and labeled ‘mind-scape’ exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > I simply believe we should be clear and honest with ourselves about it and admit as much - finally take responsibility for ourselves. I agree, accept and take actual responsibility for “yourself”. So, what is the ‘it’ word that ‘you’ just used here in reference to, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > ‘I’ think ‘you’ have drifted so far away now ‘I’ am not sure how to get ‘you’ back on track. > > Indeed conversations drift, it’s all connected. If ‘you’ took responsibility here, then ‘you’ would not drift. ‘you’ are, after all, in conversation with ‘another’ and not just in dialogue with “yourself” only this time. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > What was the actual ‘foundation’, exactly, that ALL that ‘you’ have experienced was built upon? > > That I looked at the things of this world differently and followed a path that exposed me to a parade of experiences and lessons others haven’t experienced. Were ‘you’ under some sort of illusion that everyone ‘looks at’ and ‘sees’ things not differently? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Now that you have me on the spot, how to express it?.. Firstly by defining what the word ‘it’ is even in reference to, exactly. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Most folks are wrapped up in careers and modern living and such, and I’m a different kind of species. It was simply a sharing. Who cares what ‘you’ imagine or believe what so-called “most folks” do. And, what are ‘you’ supposedly sharing here, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Was ‘it’ what “your mom” told ‘you’ about “God being a spec of dust that wanted to be more”? > > Sorry I don’t want to do this, it was explained clearly the first time, simply reread it. you appear to have missed and/or misunderstood what I was asking you exactly. you referred to some ‘foundation’ thing. I was just seeking out clarification if this ‘foundation thing’ what in reference to when your mommy told you about “God being a spec of dust that wanted to be more” OR was your use of the ‘foundation’ word in relation to something else? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Instead of an idol with tons of stories that had meaning and were important, I had a weird riddle, and a challenge to be more, and a drive to see, experience and understand. And it was viscerally important to this young that was still biology on its way to making an adult. No room in there anywhere for a God to take my hand, from the get go. Okay. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > > When I say “I am a filament in Earth’s pageant of Evolution.” > > Because that is an important key. It reflects a deep down “owning” of the fact that we humans are made of the same stuff as all the other creatures around us and before us. ‘you’ humans are made of the EXACT SAME stuff as absolutely EVERY other thing in the Universe is made up of. In fact, the whole entire Universe, at Its fundamental level, is also made up of the exact same stuff. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > That is big. Imagine an emotional connection to nature, rather than . . . > What a wonderful world it might have been. Why only an ‘emotional connection’, only? There is not a single part of ‘you’ human beings, nor a single thing human beings do that is NOT connected to Nature nor is even ‘not natural’. Although some of you adult human beings certain believe that you are above, beyond, or not a natural part of Nature, Itself. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > But of course it’s anathema to society where people take pride in “too much is never enough.” And guess my that story about me, because it explains who I am and what I’m writing about. But ‘you’ have NEVER explained what ‘the answer’ is to ‘the question’, ‘Who ‘I’ am?’, exactly, fully, nor at all here. Also, your so-called ‘story about you’ has NOT explained what ‘you’ are writing about either. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > So, is the answer to the question, “Who am ‘I’?” “I am a filament in earth’s pageant of evolution”? > > And, is ‘this answer’ the final answer for once and for all, because ‘that answer’ is backed up by what you just said and wrote here? > > No, no. You simply don’t get it. When you speak and write in ‘the way’ of using the word ‘it’, like you just did here, then the reason WHY I do not get ‘it’ because, as you just demonstrated, once more, when you use the ‘it’ word I, literally, do not get what ‘it’ is, exactly. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > It isn’t about an intellectual philosophical supposition, it is about a personal emotional relationship. Again, what is ‘it’ here, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > It is something either you feel or you don’t. “Feeling it” requires a deep understanding of evolution and how your body formed over the eons, among other matters. What are ‘you’ even talking about here? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Hopefully a wave to some others who might be able to relate to the feeling of nature as part of one’s family, as oppose to empty words. That cannot be taught or argued. The fact that absolutely every thing is natural and all just a part of the family Nature is obvious, already known, and very easy and simple to express and understand. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > What ‘empire’ is that, exactly, that you are referring to here? > > How about our current world situation physically and sociologically. So, ‘you’ are referring to ‘the’ or ‘our’ (whoever that is) ‘current’ (for however long that is) situation, both physically and sociologically, as being some so-called “empire”. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > What are that one person’s “life’s lessons”, exactly? > > The usual stages of life, acton, reaction, cascading consequences, balancing things done right with the things screwed up. Making peace with the competing voices in one’s head and impulse in one’s body. Pretty universal stuff I believe. Why do ‘you’ still have competing voices in ‘that head’? And, what does this continual dialogue that ‘you’ have with “yourself” sound like, exactly? Which one is the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct voice, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2026, 4:48am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/33 "2026-08-14T04:48:04Z")
> [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Who and/or what is this ‘my’ word referring to, which ‘now’ has ‘a being’? And, what is ‘a being’, exactly? > > Sorry was in autobiographical mode, thought it was clear So, ‘you’ ‘thought’ it was clear before, but now that ‘you’ have been asked to clarify, and therefore’ you’ ‘now know’ that it was not clear, ‘you’ still decide not to clear things up at all. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > now’ has ‘a being’? > > That must be serious philosophical stuff. > “My being” is the character who is alive within my body. Are there problems with such a description? If one talks about “my” ‘being’, “my” ‘self’, and/or “my” ‘body’, but does not yet know and so is completely unable to explain who and/or what the “my” word is in reference to, then some people might find that a sort of ‘problem’. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > > Human Mind(scape) ~ Physical Reality divide > > It turns around Descartes “I think therefore I am” into > > > I am, therefore I think Okay, but they both mean more or less the exact same thing. Which, by the way, what do they mean, to you, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Okay, but what was this ‘other epiphany’, exactly? > > Enough. So, you come to a philosophy forum to tell ‘us’ that ‘you’ had epiphanies, but when asked to just clarify what these epiphanies were, exactly, your response is “Enough”. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Suffice it to say, life has blessed me with a wonderful parade of experiences. How do ‘you’ think those who endured many abusive experiences feel when they here say, “i was blessed with wonderful experiences”, but yet it could appear that ‘this’ is about all ‘you’ really want to say and share here? What did ‘you’ exactly learn from ‘your experiences’, which could help guide or influence others in a philosophy forum in some positive or enlightened way? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > you have known about ‘what’, exactly, for decades? > > The great philosophical arguments, and the historic hero’s, and admittedly “Cliff notes sort of glosses” and sugary biographies. Okay, do ‘you’ imagine ‘others’ are excited to come to realise and know that an older human being has known about thousands-of-years-old, still unresolved, philosophical arguments, for decades? Are ‘you’ able to provide the answers, solutions, or resolutions to any of those very old and outdated ‘philosophical arguments’? The formula, solution, and answer in HOW to resolve all of them, by the way, has already been uncovered, and is thus already known. Just in case ‘you’ were interested. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Enough to get the questions into my imagination. Just the fact of living on the road and every day a new experience, nothing but hello and good bye, but what a time and how else to really meet people. That kind of living and then in-between alone, drives a person to philosophizing. What does ‘philosophising’ mean, or refer to, ‘to you’, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > I am not sure if I missed ‘it’, but what are you talking about here, exactly? And, where did you “arrive” at, exactly? > > It. Okay. Do ‘you’ think or believe that ‘your response’ here clears up and clarifies anything here? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > That satisfactory feeling of having arrived, to inhabit the feeling of being at home. That is GREAT if ‘you’ really have. But, some might suggest that ‘you’ not informing anyone else HOW, exactly, ‘you’ were able to achieve this is not really that helpful here. Some might be thinking that ‘you’ are just gloating and do not want ‘others’ to find out HOW ‘you’ achieved what ‘you’ claim ‘you’ have here. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Knowing who I am, Claiming that ‘you’ ‘know who ‘I’ am’ is very simple and easy to do, but if ‘you’ cannot provide an actual answer and clarity to ‘Who ‘I’ am, exactly?’ then ‘your claim’ is really nothing at all. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > not through imagination, but through remembered achievements and failures. Are ‘you’ here ‘trying to’ claim that just through ‘remembered achievements and failures’ a person can know who ‘I’ am, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Feeling at home with myself. Yet ‘you’ still cannot recognise and see the oxymoron and self-contradictory term “myself”. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Loving at the “I am” of that weird kid long ago, still resides in a little niche that can even come out when a long a good 'ol rock’n roll song that has meaning to me. To think of the lofty goals I made for myself. To know that I did pretty good, and have some solid outside of objective support for such a notion. Being able to balance the horror & rage of what we are doing (and I’ve watch and bemoaned the train of big mistakes that led to this horror show. I can compartmentalize that and ride the waves. Bet I could keep going, but there’s no point to it. > It was simply background. Some might not think that ‘you’ continuing to commit horror and do rage is really a good or balanced thing to do in Life. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > To me, there is NO divide. > > How’s that work? In perfect balance. ‘I’ just do NOT ‘look at’ ‘the world/Universe’ in the ‘same way’ that ‘you’ adult human beings do. ‘I’ therefore do NOT ‘see’ what ‘you’ people do. ---
**Author:** ![Citizenschallenge](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/citizenschallenge/32/1027_2.png) [@Citizenschallenge](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Citizenschallenge)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2026, 6:03am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/34 "2026-08-14T06:03:08Z")
> [@ages](#): > > So, to see if I have this right and correct, to ‘you’, the ‘self’ is “the biology” that creates what ‘you’ now call “your insides” and “the body” that takes ‘you’ from birth to what you call “death”, correct? Let’s not forget that self in constant interaction with the outside environment. That gets way too little attention. Yes, the self is basically the animal me and all I entail. > [@ages](#): > > Why do you believe that ‘this world’ is what you call a “difficult, unforgiving world”, exactly? Are you a child? I had a tough construction boss, and every so often I’d ask him something and receive a withering look and: “you didn’t have to ask that” in other words, think about it for a moment. Are you aware of evolution and previous generations, and other lived realities besides your own? > [@ages](#): > > I am not sure HOW 'the biology", that creates the insides of the body and the body itself, has a mind, but anyway. Where do you think mind should originate? What is consciousness for in the first place? > [@ages](#): > > But ‘you’ have not yet explained who and/or what ‘you’, ‘that self’, is, exactly? Which is what ‘I’ was asking and looking for here. Yes I have. Now it’s time to give those words a few minutes of your thoughts. > [@ages](#): > > WHY ‘you’ ‘look at’ and ‘see’ most things differently from all of the other ‘you’s’ and ‘selves’ I already know. Because I’m a very different person from you, with a very, very different lived experience. > [@ages](#): > > ‘I’ am just seeking out if ‘you’ really do know ‘you’, ‘that self’, and if ‘you’ do, then by how much, exactly? Damned straight so try getting serious and you might develop a different understanding and get more out of our dialogue than this cynical interrogation. > [@ages](#): > > > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > > I don’t get the confusion, your self is the meat and blood, sweat, and tears. > > What ‘confusion’ are ‘you’ referring to here, exactly? What confused are you talking about, ever look at suicide rates, mental illness, homeless, Jobless about to be homeless. I mean if you have to ask what "blood, sweat and tears of living means, how much have you experienced? > [@ages](#): > > Once more, by ‘you’ writing “your self”, ‘you’ have missed and/or misunderstood all ‘I’ have been saying and pointing out about how the words and terms “myself” and “yourself” are oxymorons and contradictions in terms. If you could unwrap that in a rational manner, it would be fun to discuss. Also might include a few words about biology’s place in your reality. > [@ages](#): > > WHY ‘that’ does not suffice is because when some people talk about and use the word ‘self’, they are referring to a ‘person’ or ‘people’, and a ‘person/people’ are NOT the visible physical human body that ‘we’ can ‘look at’ and ‘see’. When some people talk about? … What frame of reference? My frame of reference is Earth’s evolution and my being born out of Earth’s geological/biologica processes, Full stop. My perspective is built upon a deep appreciation for the Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide (_or mindscape, as I like to refer to it as_), That is my first base foundational observation, upon which all else is built using the building blocks of observed facts that science has been collecting and learning about. > [@ages](#): > > For the very simple reason that if ‘we’ were to cut off an arm or a leg from a human body, for example, then ‘that person’ does NOT become ‘less of a person’. What a quaint idealistic statement for someone who has never lost a limb. > [@ages](#): > > So, when the word ‘self’ is used, and ‘we’ are referring to a ‘person’, then the “meat, blood, sweat, and tears” are NOT the ‘self’, nor the ‘person’. Again, this is why Frame Of Reference is so important, and why idealism and absolutism is a deadend. > [@ages](#): > > So, when the word ‘self’ is used, and ‘we’ are referring to a ‘person’, then the “meat, blood, sweat, and tears” are NOT the ‘self’, nor the ‘person’. This stuff is for people with little to do. I live an active real life and talk is cheap, what you do is what matters. > [@ages](#): > > Why not? ‘We’ are in a philosophy forum after all, and to some people anyway, ‘philosophy’ is about finding Truth, or HOW ‘we’ can come to find and know the Truth of things. Again, truth requires a frame of reference for it to be meaningful. Many people use philosophy as a cynical game, there’s nothing that can’t be dismissed, lets count the ways. I’m a more serious person than that, always have been. And from this sharing of perspective, seems like I’m right to think I’m a very different person than you. (not that there’s anything wrong with that - just say’n) Best wishes ---
**Author:** ![Wayfarer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wayfarer/32/123_2.png) [@Wayfarer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Wayfarer)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2026, 9:46am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/35 "2026-08-14T09:46:07Z")
> [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Thanks for taking the time to pen that interesting helpful response. Hopefully in a few days I’ll have something less hippy dippy and a bit more grown up and focused on the actual philosophical arguments No worries, I’m coming to understand your perspective better! And we’re not as far apart as you think. But I still feel you’re misidentifying the real target of the ‘hard problem’ argument. It’s not an ‘anti-science’ argument. Here’s an excerpt from the transcript of the Nick Lane video on bioelectricity and consciousness that you provided: > …this is a quote from Derek Denton, who died a year or two ago at the age of 97 and had thought a great deal about consciousness. This was an example he used to use about a fox caught in a trap that gnawed its own leg off to escape. The point he makes is: is the animal aware that it’s held by its paw in the trap’s jaws, and does it have an intention to get free? Gnawing through its own skin, muscle, and bone to set itself free is a purposive act and very probably extremely painful. It seems a plausible viewpoint that the animal has enough body image sense to see that its paw is part of itself that is held, and its intention is to get free—it is self-aware and has a plan. I am sure that not everybody in this room would agree with that, but I would like to think most would. It seems kind of obvious to me, and most people who are familiar with animals would probably see at least that level of consciousness about them. > > Now, take (the single-celled organism) _Stentor_: it’s got all these little cilia beating continuously, and it whirs like an electric battery going around. Consider an amoeba that comes in and starts to engulf this _Stentor_ very gently and gradually. _Stentor_ figures out what’s going on, zooms away, and comes back for a look later on, while another cell gets engulfed and eaten by the amoeba. You can see it’s figured out at some point what’s happening, and you feel quite sorry for it because it’s just being digested. But the top bit somehow wriggles itself free and escapes. You’d have said it was dead, but then these cilia start beating again; they flicker to life, pull themselves free, and off it goes. > > I wanted to show you that because if the fox has a sense of self in escaping from a jaw trap, does the _Stentor_ have a sense of self? It’s very easy to overstretch the imagination and say, “Okay, well obviously I’m reading human emotion into a cell which obviously has none of those things.” But to any unbiased eye, it really looks like it’s struggling to get free, it finally does get free, and off it goes. I don’t think in any meaningful sense that it has an understanding that it exists, that it has a self, or that it has awareness, but it certainly struggles to stay alive and acts as an entity. Those are two things that I think are perhaps quite important. Now consider this passage from my essay, Is the Mind Cause or Consequence? > Even granting that primitive organisms are oriented, bounded, and self-maintaining — how could we know that they are, in reality, _subjects of experience_? How could inwardness, even if present, ever be disclosed to us? > > Evan Thompson’s answer, in _Mind in Life_⁵, picks up on Jonas’ suggestion: life can only be known by life. Quoting Jonas, he writes: “This inwardness or interiority is disclosable to us because we ourselves are living beings who experience our own bodily selfhood firsthand.” > > > _In observing other creatures struggling to continue their existence — starting with bacteria that actively swim away from a chemical repellent — we can, through the evidence of our own experience and the Darwinian evidence of the continuity of life, view inwardness and purposiveness as proper to living being ~ Evan Thompson, Mind in Life, p. 165._ > > So: we don’t _infer_ inwardness in living beings only from their behavior, as we might infer the existence of dark matter from gravitational disturbance. We _recognise_ it — because we share something with the phenomena we are trying to understand⁷. Which in turn implies something close to _empathy_: we know creatures — at least to some extent — because we of what we are. So, Nick Lane is doing just what I said! He’s saying, look, we don’t _know_ if bacteria or foxes have a ‘sense of self’, but we can _imagine_ they do! And I agree with him, of course. But it’s also a fact that neither he or I knows that for certain — because it’s a judgement about the inner state of a being. And that is what can’t be known, in the same sense that ‘voltage differentials’ can be known. ---
**Author:** ![Citizenschallenge](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/citizenschallenge/32/1027_2.png) [@Citizenschallenge](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Citizenschallenge)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2026, 4:43pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/36 "2026-08-14T16:43:08Z")
> [@Wayfarer](#): > > I don’t think in any meaningful sense that it has an understanding that it exists, that it has a self, or that it has awareness, but it certainly struggles to stay alive and acts as an entity. That’s the Drive to Thrive. > [@Wayfarer](#): > > So, Nick Lane is doing just what I said! He’s saying, look, we don’t _know_ if bacteria or foxes have a ‘sense of self’, but we can _imagine_ they do! And I agree with him, of course. > But it’s also a fact that neither he or I knows that for certain — because it’s a judgement about the inner state of a being. > And that is what can’t be known, in the same sense that ‘voltage differentials’ can be known. I understand what you are saying. As you point out it’s a judgement call. Honestly that “we can’t know for certain” argument doesn’t impress me much. It seems more like an excuse - If you want to get down to brass tacks, we don’t know “for certain” that the sun will come up tomorrow. I’ll admit, I do believe the sun will come up, but I can’t claim certainty. This is where the preponderance of evidence comes in. How we weight the lines of the evidence we have. How we weight our intellectual notions against the physical evidence and so on. And doing the best we can, with what we have. We do more than simply imagine that other evolved creatures have awareness, the way we imagine philosophical notions. We have a growing confluence of circumstantial evidence, which to me ought to hold more value than retreating to, “we can never know the inside of another,” as if that fundamental fact of life were some sort of evidence against the notion. ---
**Author:** ![Wayfarer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/wayfarer/32/123_2.png) [@Wayfarer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Wayfarer)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2026, 2:59am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/37 "2026-08-15T02:59:30Z")
> [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Honestly that “we can’t know for certain” argument doesn’t impress me much. But think about it. In respect of the empirical observations, great certainty can be obtained. But not so with respect to the felt nature of the inner states. And as that is central to the entire debate, it can’t just be brushed off. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2026, 4:46am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/38 "2026-08-15T04:46:38Z")
> [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > So, to see if I have this right and correct, to ‘you’, the ‘self’ is “the biology” that creates what ‘you’ now call “your insides” and “the body” that takes ‘you’ from birth to what you call “death”, correct? > > Let’s not forget that self in constant interaction with the outside environment. That gets way too little attention. > > Yes, the self is basically the animal me and all I entail. If ‘that’ is what the ‘self’ is to ‘you’, then okay. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Why do you believe that ‘this world’ is what you call a “difficult, unforgiving world”, exactly? > > Are you a child? > > I had a tough construction boss, Was “he” ‘tough’, or were ‘you’ just ‘weak’? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > and every so often I’d ask him something and receive a withering look and: “you didn’t have to ask that” in other words, think about it for a moment. Okay, but so what? My question was, and still is, 'Why do you believe that this world is what you cal a difficult and unforgiving world, exactly? Is it because you had one boss that you considered ‘tough’ the reason WHY you believe this world is supposedly difficult and unforgiving exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Are you aware of evolution and previous generations, and other lived realities besides your own? Yes to the first one, some to the other one, but why do you ask? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > I am not sure HOW 'the biology", that creates the insides of the body and the body itself, has a mind, but anyway. > > Where do you think mind should originate? I do not think the Mind ‘should’ originate anywhere. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > What is consciousness for in the first place? The ‘consciousness’ relates more or less to ‘awareness’ itself. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > But ‘you’ have not yet explained who and/or what ‘you’, ‘that self’, is, exactly? Which is what ‘I’ was asking and looking for here. > > Yes I have. Now it’s time to give those words a few minutes of your thoughts. So, to “citizenschallenge” when it talks about the ‘self’ it is referring to the ‘human body’ among other things like ‘the biology’ that creates what it calls “your insides”. So, if an arm or a leg is chopped of a human body, for example, or the appendix or tonsils are removed, then ‘that self’ becomes less of ‘a self’. But, this is “citizenchallenges” opinion and belief only here. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > WHY ‘you’ ‘look at’ and ‘see’ most things differently from all of the other ‘you’s’ and ‘selves’ I already know. > > Because I’m a very different person from you, with a very, very different lived experience. Did you not read what I wrote, or did you just miss and/or misunderstand what I said and meant? I already informed ‘you’ that I already KNOW WHY ‘you’ ‘look at’ and ‘see’ things differently from everyone else. And, the reason WHY ‘you’ do is that ‘you’ are very different from everyone else. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > ‘I’ am just seeking out if ‘you’ really do know ‘you’, ‘that self’, and if ‘you’ do, then by how much, exactly? > > Damned straight so try getting serious and you might develop a different understanding and get more out of our dialogue than this cynical interrogation. Do you know WHY you have this belief that this is a ‘cynical interrogation’ for exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > > > > I don’t get the confusion, your self is the meat and blood, sweat, and tears. > > > > What ‘confusion’ are ‘you’ referring to here, exactly? > > What confused are you talking about, ‘you’ are ‘the one’ who introduced the ‘confusion’ word, so I am talking about ‘that confused’. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > ever look at suicide rates, mental illness, homeless, Jobless about to be homeless. Yes. And, I KNOW WHY they exist also. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > I mean if you have to ask what "blood, sweat and tears of living means, how much have you experienced? But I was NOT asking ‘that’. What led you believe that I was? ‘I’ was just asking ‘you’ completely open questions, for clarity’s sake, regarding whether ‘you’ really believe that the ‘self’ refers to the ‘human body’. ‘you’ clarified that it does. So, that is ‘now’ settled. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Once more, by ‘you’ writing “your self”, ‘you’ have missed and/or misunderstood all ‘I’ have been saying and pointing out about how the words and terms “myself” and “yourself” are oxymorons and contradictions in terms. > > If you could unwrap that in a rational manner, it would be fun to discuss. I was trying to ‘unwrap ‘that’ in a rational manner’, but you kept appearing to miss the part where I was discussing how the word ‘my’ implies ownership. Can you and did you comprehend this? If yes, then ‘we’ can move along. So, if the word ‘my’ refers to ownership, then whenver the word ‘my’ is used, then there would be some sort of ‘owner’, which when discussing human beings are being referred to would mean that when the word ‘my’ is used it is in reference to some ‘human being’. Therefore, when the word “myself” is used, who and/or what is the word “my” in reference to, exactly, which supposedly has “its” own ‘self’? Now, if ‘you’ can comprehend and understand ‘this’, then ‘we’ can keep moving further along. However, if you did not understand either of these, and ‘you’ are interested and curious to learn and understand more and/or anew, then it is now up to ‘you’ to ask some Truly open clarifying questions, for clarity’s sake. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Also might include a few words about biology’s place in your reality. Can you rephrase this sentence of yours here? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > WHY ‘that’ does not suffice is because when some people talk about and use the word ‘self’, they are referring to a ‘person’ or ‘people’, and a ‘person/people’ are NOT the visible physical human body that ‘we’ can ‘look at’ and ‘see’. > > When some people talk about? … Why did you write ‘this sentence’, but then put a question mark at the end of it? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > What frame of reference? What are ‘you’ even referring to here, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > My frame of reference is Earth’s evolution and my being born out of Earth’s geological/biologica processes, Full stop. Ah, this explains WHY ‘you’ have such a narrowed and closed field of view and perspective here. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > My perspective is built upon a deep appreciation for the Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide Do ‘you’ believe that ‘you’ KNOW what the ‘Physical Reality’ is, exactly? And, WHY do ‘you’ talk about some thing called a “human mind” when NONE exists? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > (_or mindscape, as I like to refer to it as_), > That is my first base foundational observation, upon which all else is built using the building blocks of observed facts that science has been collecting and learning about. If ‘your’ own personal first base foundational observation is some so-called “mindscape” thing, then what is ‘it’, exactly? Can ‘science’ explain ‘Physical Reality’ fully and precisely yet? If no, then WHY ‘you’ claim to know ‘Physical Reality’, exactly? But, if ‘science’ can, then where is ‘that literature’, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > For the very simple reason that if ‘we’ were to cut off an arm or a leg from a human body, for example, then ‘that person’ does NOT become ‘less of a person’. > > What a quaint idealistic statement for someone who has never lost a limb. Do ‘you’ think or ‘feel’ that by ‘you’ saying what ‘you’ said and wrote here gives ‘your own personal opinion and belief’ here more weight or more credence? Oh, and by the way, why do ‘you’ believe, absolutely, that ‘this body’ has NOT so-called “lost” a limb? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > So, when the word ‘self’ is used, and ‘we’ are referring to a ‘person’, then the “meat, blood, sweat, and tears” are NOT the ‘self’, nor the ‘person’. > > Again, this is why Frame Of Reference is so important, and why idealism and absolutism is a deadend. See just HOW MUCH ‘these people’ are NOT able to ‘look at’, ‘see’, and ‘understand’ while they are holding onto and maintaining ‘a belief’. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > So, when the word ‘self’ is used, and ‘we’ are referring to a ‘person’, then the “meat, blood, sweat, and tears” are NOT the ‘self’, nor the ‘person’. > > This stuff is for people with little to do. LOL ‘this stuff’ > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > I live an active real life and talk is cheap, what you do is what matters. It could be said and argued that ‘your talk’ is cheap, but then there would be too much more to discuss and understand here. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Why not? ‘We’ are in a philosophy forum after all, and to some people anyway, ‘philosophy’ is about finding Truth, or HOW ‘we’ can come to find and know the Truth of things. > > Again, truth requires a frame of reference for it to be meaningful. So, what ‘frame of reference’ are ‘you’ coming from, exactly? > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > Many people use philosophy as a cynical game, there’s nothing that can’t be dismissed, lets count the ways. But many, many things can be dismissed outright through logically reasoned discussions. > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > I’m a more serious person than that, always have been. And from this sharing of perspective, seems like I’m right to think I’m a very different person than you. Again, this was ALREADY KNOWN before ‘you’ even came to a philosophy forum? ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2026, 4:49am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/39 "2026-08-15T04:49:40Z")
> [@Wayfarer](#): > > because it’s a judgement about the inner state of a being. And that is what can’t be known, Why do you believe, absolutely, that the so-called ‘inner state of a being’ cannot be known? Does this not able to be known apply to absolutely every thing, or to some things only? ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2026, 4:56am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217/40 "2026-08-15T04:56:30Z")
> [@Wayfarer](#): > > > [@Citizenschallenge](#): > > > > Honestly that “we can’t know for certain” argument doesn’t impress me much. > > But think about it. In respect of the empirical observations, great certainty can be obtained. But not so with respect to the felt nature of the inner states. If the actual Truth be known, there is absolutely nothing that can be known with absolutely certainty’, other than ‘I’ exist, and ‘thoughts’ arise. See, if ‘we’ want to get down to the very deepest understanding of ‘knowing’ itself, ‘I’ cannot ‘know’ with any certainty at all if the ‘thoughts’ that arise are actually True or not. For all ‘I’ know, with certainty, is that ‘I’ exist, and ‘the thoughts’ that do arise may or may not be of any Real thing at all. But, once ‘that’ is fully understood, then ‘we’ human beings can get down to ‘looking at’ and ‘discussing’ other things. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217.md?page=1) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/does-the-hard-problem-relate-at-all-to-peoples-existential-struggles/2217.md?page=3)