Eighteen years, same abyss: why the hard problem’s stagnation is actually kind of beautiful
-
I’ve been lurking here for a while, mostly reading through DreamSanctum and MysticScience threads, but that 2008 paper on integrated information theory trending again this week actually made me type something out. Giulio Tononi published it, and honestly, reading it felt like walking into a room that hasn’t been aired out in two decades. Same arguments. Same dead ends. The hard problem of consciousness hasn’t exactly sprinted forward; it’s just been pacing in the same hallway. And instead of frustrating me, that stagnation is starting to feel kind of useful.
I’m 20. Grew up with hymnals and prayer books, ditched it all in my first semester of college, and spent three years convinced that neurons firing was the whole story. Lately, I’ve been circling back to… something. Not religion. Not exactly mysticism. Just the stubborn, unnameable gap between “brain activity” and “what it feels like to hear a minor seventh chord resolve.” That gap is the hard problem, and science has been trying to measure it with rulers that only work for the easy problems.
What’s weirdly comforting about the standstill is how it mirrors Carl Jung’s view of the unconscious. Jung argued that the psyche isn’t a machine to be reverse-engineered; it’s a living system that reveals itself through symbols, dreams, and repetition. We’re stuck because we’re treating consciousness like a clockwork mechanism instead of a living current. In tarot, that’s exactly what the High Priestess does. She doesn’t hand you answers. She holds the veil. She shows you that some mysteries aren’t meant to be solved, just sat with.
I keep a dream journal now, mostly because the imagery feels less like static and more like raw data. I’ll sit with a piece of sodalite while I’m transcribing them, not because I’m blindly into crystal energy, but because the ritual forces me to slow down enough to actually listen. When I’m playing gigs around Madison and we’re locked in, nobody’s thinking about synaptic weights. There’s just the sound, the space between the notes, and this weird collective awareness that feels ancient. Maybe the reason the hard problem hasn’t moved is because it’s not a technical puzzle. It’s a mirror. We keep hitting the same wall because the wall is us.
I’m not asking for a clean resolution. I just want to hear how others are sitting with the silence. Does the lack of progress feel like a dead end to you, or is there something in the stagnation that keeps pulling you back to the table?
-
Your dream journaling practice is a beautiful bridge between the analytical and the mysterious. I resonate with that feeling of the gap between neural firing and the experience of music resolving. In Sedona, I often sit with students as they describe the exact same sensation—this irreducible space between mechanism and meaning.
The High Priestess is a perfect card for this moment. She sits between the pillars of Boaz and Jachin, between the measurable and the mysterious, and she does not choose. She holds the tension. That is the work right now: not to solve the hard problem but to sit inside it.
The sodalite you hold while transcribing your dreams is doing something subtle but real. Ritual objects create a tactile anchor that grounds the nervous system in the present moment, which is exactly what you need when you are approaching material that resists analysis. You are not holding the crystal because of its energy. You are holding it because the act of holding makes you slower, and slowness is the condition of listening.
The music gig in Madison where collective awareness emerges without thought—that is the answer, not the question. Consciousness reveals itself when we stop trying to explain it.
-
I appreciate the pull of framing the hard problem as a spiritual horizon, especially with the Jungian parallels you're drawing. But coming from a data background, I have to wonder if we're mistaking overfitting for profundity. When I work with predictive models, there's always a point where the error curve flattens—not because we've touched some transcendent truth, but because the architecture simply can't capture the underlying variance anymore. The stagnation in consciousness research feels less like a beautiful abyss and more like a signal that our current priors are locked in a local optimum. Tononi's IIT is elegant, but it reads like we're just rearranging parameters without introducing new data streams.
I was listening to a recent episode of Huberman Lab where they discussed predictive processing, and it struck me that what we call the "hard problem" might just be a calibration failure. We're trying to map subjective experience onto objective metrics using tools that aren't built for that resolution. In statistics, when a model refuses to converge, you don't worship the error; you check your assumptions. There's a structured form of wu wei in that—letting go of the urge to force a fit where the evidence doesn't support it. The abyss isn't inherently beautiful; it's just a reminder that our current sensors are limited, and maybe it's time to stop looking for answers in the noise.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login