elemesmedve

What I'm getting at is the difference between subjective experience ("chills") and any theory describing it. ("Qualia", "no amount of simulating water will make anything wet", etc.)

Although personally I prefer scientific theories to describe reality (they are still the best/most useful), our experience is never "based" on theories.

There are only "spiritual" "things". Where do you think "biology", "chemistry" and "synapses" come from?

I have a hunch that a lot of complaining about "light mode" is because people's monitors are too bright.

I always make sure that my monitors are set so that a full white screen is comfortable to look at indefinitely. (With this in mind I find I enjoy light mode themes more than dark mode ones. YMMW. (Obviously blacks should be close to real black with this setup for proper contrast. All in all, a well calibrated monitor should be a joy to look at no matter the color theme.))

It was already the case that "90% of everything is garbage".

Now with AI humanity can achieve 99.999%.

I think we cannot know anything at all, in the sense of completely understanding and knowing the "essence" of something. All our knowledge is instrumental. We have pragmatic theories and that's all we'll ever have. The existence of a (physical) reality? A (very useful) theory. Existence of "things"? It's the pragmatic way our thinking works.

Consciousness comes first, theories about "reality" come after. Expecting of "solving" the "mystery of consciousness" is futile. Existence is mystical and unknowable.

Still, it's very useful to strive for understanding and explanations, we just have to accept our limitations.