Why the Hard Problem of Consciousness is Hard

The Hard Problem of Consciousness is hard because consciousness is the First Principle of existence. The Hard Problem of Consciousness is, "why do the chemical processes of the brain, the inputs and outputs, turn into an experience of being?" The answer cannot be solved because consciousness is the very first fact of being. Just as Aristotle's first principle of reason was noncontradiction, and so it became impossible to conclusively prove it in the field of logic, consciousness is the first principle of being. Noncontradiction is to reason as consciousness is to all of existence. David Chalmers famously said that one thing we cannot deny is that we're conscious. Descartes similarly said I think therefore I am, "cogito ergo sum." It is true it's the only thing we can't deny, but it is also the only thing we have to take on faith. It is the ultimate combination of epistemology ("how do I know" philosophy) and ontology ("what is being" philosophy). Along with this blend, or perhaps because of it, consciousness is self-affirming. It is also eternal, because if existence goes on in the universe for other people, and if consciousness is a first principle of being, then individual being exists beyond life and into the next life.

Axiomatic Rules in Psychology

There are axioms in math. There are axioms in physics. Great thinkers always use at least 1 axiom. A Big Think talk discussed the axiom of Einstein, "the speed of light is constant." What is the axiom in psychology? It starts from the self-affirming principle, "Truth is true." This is also known as non-contradiction. I propose that what we should hold onto (and what I do hold onto) is, "speak only truth." It is a moral imperative, proposed as far back as least 300 years ago with Kant. However, it informs psychological research rather well. It also takes it into a different domain than other sciences.

Originally, psychology was a combination of science, philosophy, and theology. It still has theology and science underpinning it, but it's losing some of the philosophy. The philosophy of ethics is a good place to see psychological axioms. How can obligation to such law create psychological insights in thinkers?

Clinically, this may have applications. The goal of counseling is often to get a client to reveal a big fear, something dark that was never revealed to others. Once this is done, counseling begins. This makes honesty essential.

Experimentally, this has methodological benefit. Do not deceive in order to learn. That would be self-refuting. Studies that use deception are not informative, because there is no proof in a deception. It is completely illusory. Falsehoods are fake. False=false.

What is an actual result in an experiment that could follow from "speak only truth"? Potentially, we could see if adherence to logic causes psychological benefits from emotions to thinking. However, we could also do it as a thought experiment. What happens when someone says, "It is but it isn't"? It is simply delighting in a feeling of intuition which is actually just confusion objectified.