I think I agree with mysterianism (new term for me). My take is that consciousness does not need or permit an explanation (c.f. Goedel Incompleteness) and no n

I think I agree with mysterianism (new term for me). My take is that consciousness does not need or permit an explanation (c.f. Goedel Incompleteness) and no new information about the world can be found by attempting to formulate one. In practical, empirical terms it makes no difference if experience is subjective or just an objective illusion of subjectivity. It is of no use and akin to sophistry. I think Chalmers is a charlatan or just making a living off of being confused himself and reality is more toward Daniel Dennet. However panpsychism may be true but empirically unprovable. It is kind of like the old "if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?" question. "If a being thinks that consciousness is separate and essential to the process of *thinking, does that make that being conscious?" *Provided feelings count as thought.