crt0o

What I mean by subjective experience is what you might refer to as what reality looks like from a specific viewpoint or what it appears like when observed. I'm not sure whether you're assuming a physicalist or idealist position when you say "what we observe is the physical world". My issue with this is that observation usually implies the existence of something which is being observed, the appearance upon observation, and possibly also an observer. 

If you claim that the physical world doesn't exist independently of observation, and is thus nothing beyond the totality of observed appearances (seems to me like a form of idealism), then what is being observed? If there is no object being observed, and the fact it it apparent from multiple perspectives is simply a consequence of the coherence of observation, where do the qualities of those appearances originate from? How come things don't cease to exist when they're not being observed?

If you claim that the appearances don't exist independently of the physical world being observed (the physicalist interpretation), why does the world appear different from different perspectives? How do you explain things like hallucinations (there is no physical object being observed, but still some appearance is present)?

The reason I brought up that example is because physicalists usually deny the existence of qualia and claim they're nothing beyond the brain processes correlated with them. 

My line of thought is this: the most epistemically primary thing is subjective experience, because it can be known directly, thus it is undeniably real. Due to the principle of ontological parsimony, if everything can be explained in terms of experience, there is no reason to postulate something beyond it (the physical). So the way I would formulate the hard problem would be something more like "Why does our experience contain the appearance of a physical world at all, and how are they related?".

I guess this might not resonate with you either, if you don't believe in phenomenal consciousness as all. Personally I have a hard time understanding physicalist reductionism, how can you say that something like the experience of redness is the same thing as some pattern of neurons firing in the brain? These are clearly very different things, and even if one is entirely dependent on the other, it doesn't mean it's non-existent or illusory.

The reason is trying to work towards a model which could actually solve the hard problem, something which the physicalism prevalent in science has failed at completely. Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, and it needs to be taken seriously, any model which doesn't include it is either inacurrate or incomplete. Yes, a single particle might act randomly, but that might not hold for a more complex entangled system, especially an orchestrated one inside a living being.

My idea is that the agent is the particle itself, and the laws of physics are simply the statistics of what decisions it tends to make. I imagine that if a fundamental particle like an electron was phenomenally conscious and had some kind of agency, it wouldn't have any intention or self-awareness, so it would decide practically randomly, based on its quantum state, which would be some kind of rudimentary experience it has.

You're assuming quantum indeterminism is random in the sense that there is no agency behind it, but there is no evidence of that. If anything, the fact we feel like we have free will suggests there might be some agency somewhere, and if it manifests anywhere, that is as indeterminism at the fundamental level.

The laws of physics are not deterministic at the fundamental level, we clearly experience some kind of agency, so doesn't it make sense to assume that it could be the origin of this indeterminism?

Brain rod: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

There's decent evidence Tom Holland is a real guy too

Blender material moment

I wholeheartedly agree, and as funny as this sounds, I just started writing a manifesto about this yesterday lmao.

I think the main issue is the way morality is framed in neoliberalism, many religions etc.—as something prescriptive. We follow laws not because of some internal moral principles, because we conform to authority and fear punishment. This isn't rational but deeply instinctual, and it leads to immoral action. Similarly, I think tribalism is a consequence of instinctual action and probably one of the main causes of evil in the world. Racism, nationalism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. can all be explained in this framework. We need to educate people to recognize instinct and transcend it. A political system, however perfect, cannot be forced on people who aren't ready for it.

There is no such thing as objective morality. Being moral is a matter of will and character—consciously choosing what kind of person you want to be. I want to be the kind of person that brings pleasure into the world, and so I am a utilitarian.

Edit: And I'm not saying that I am fulfilling that adequately at all. Any coherent moral stance usually has implications which are "undesirable". If I were truly utilitarian, I should probably be donating money to the global south, and so should anyone else who claims to be moral.