The question is too broad to give a non-boring answer without knowing a bit more about you and your circumstances.
What is the hardest part of AI alignment?
This post probably wasn't the way to start...
On a recent trip to China I found the trend there - at least for fancy meals - is low carb, with few noodles and often no rice at all.
Doesn't example 3 show that one and two are actually the same? What difference does it make whether you start inside or outside the room?
At a glance meta-philosophy sounds similar to the problem of what is good, which is normally considered to be within the bounds of regular philosophy. (And to the extent that people avoid talking about it I think it's because the problem of good is on a deep enough level inherently subjective and therefore political, and they want to focus on technical problem solving rather than political persuasion)
What's an example of an important practical problem you believe can only be solved by meta-philosophy?
In general how can you know whether and how much something has experiences?
I think with things like the nature of perception you could say there's a natural incomparability because you couldn't (seemingly) experience someone else's perceptions without translating them into structures your brain can parse. But I'm not very sure on this.
HPoC is demanding a justification of experience from within a world in which everything is just experiences. Of course it can't be answered!
I think I see what you're saying and I do suspect that experience might be too fundamentally subjective to have a clear objective explanation, but I also think it's premature to give up on the question until we've further investigated and explained the objective correlates of consciousness or lack thereof - like blindsight, pain asymbolia, or the fact that we're talking about it right now.
And does "everything is just experiences" mean that a rock has experiences? Does it have an infinite number of different ones? Is your red, like, the same as my red, dude? Being able to convincingly answer questions like these is part of what it would mean to me to solve the Hard Problem.
Some interesting examples but this seems to be yet another take that claims to solve/dissolve consciousness by simply ignoring the Hard Problem.
As a counterpoint I found Oppenheimer straightforwardly enjoyable and I'm not sure what you're getting at when you say otherwise. I would have a preferred a little more science and a little less legal drama, but the latter was still interesting and (more importantly) well presented.