The "hard problem" of consciousness — why subjective experience exists at all — has been the central pillar of consciousness studies since the 90s. But Daniel Dennett and now several others are pointing out something that should have been obvious: we might be chasing a ghost we conjured ourselves. The "hard problem" might just be a category error. We assumed there's a gap between physical processes and subjective experience, then named that assumed gap a problem to solve. Circular reasoning dressed up as profound mystery.

Here's where this hits home for me as someone who works with Elder Futhark. When I cast runes, I don't sit there asking "why does meaning arise from carved wood?" That question would feel absurd. The meaning emerges from the interaction — between the symbols, the caster, the context, the moment. It's relational. The runes don't contain meaning like a jar contains water.

I think consciousness studies has been stuck asking "where is the water in the jar" when there was never a jar. Just patterns. Relationships.

From what I understand about Jung's synchronicity, he ran into the same wall — trying to bridge inner and outer as if they were fundamentally separate domains that needed connecting. But what if they were never separate? What if the separation itself is the illusion we keep reinforcing by demanding an explanation for it?

The Fool card in tarot walks off a cliff trusting the void. Maybe that's the real answer — not that consciousness is a hard problem waiting to be solved, but that the boundary between "physical" and "experiential" was always a conceptual habit, not a real divide.

I'm not saying materialism wins. I'm saying the whole framing might be wrong, and we've spent thirty years doing philosophy on a false premise.

Anyone else read this? Am I off base here?