The answer provided to the hard question doesn't answer the hard question. There is no reason we're aware of that a ton of computations should lead to a subjective experience, it's akin to people saying flies spontaneously generate around decaying food because they do. At the time it was plausible, but insisting it's the answer to the question is human arrogance
I can see how it might seem like it doesn’t explain the hard problem, but what I’m trying to articulate is that awareness or the self or subjective experience is just that system I described happening really fast. There’s nothing mystical happening here. It’s chaos theory sitting on top of a information processing system that has memory, decision making models, and the ability to learn.
Again we are searching for something more that doesn’t need to be there.
And what I'm saying is, you have absolutely no evidence or way to prove that. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am saying it has as much scientific evidence as spontaneous generation did
Of course, articulating what the subjective experience being referred to is another problems on its own. All of your comment can exist independent of that perception that's being described. There's no reason for us to have a centralized feeling of it all happening, and the fact that it can be turned off temporarily while the rest mainly still functions is actually mild evidence against the idea that they're one and the same
