I've nothing against speculation, but you yourself said it's unlikely (and can't be known) that we understand subjective experiences in the same way. We've already seen in this thread that, though a certain collection of words might mean something to you, I struggle to understand it. It's as if ... (cough) it's a bit beyond us.
Natural language communication of personal experience is always complicated by subjectivity, but difficulty understanding meaning is usually due to unfamiliarity with usage or context, or mistaking the usage or context, or incorrect usage, or insufficient information.
Likewise, there is a (Godellian) aspect to the axiomatic side of things where, though we can be very certain we're talking about the same thing, we also know there is part of that system that is unreachable to both of us.
I don't understand what you're saying - our subjective experience is mutually inaccessible, but I don't know what you mean by a 'Godellian aspect' of 'the axiomatic side of things' means or how it's relevant to subjective experience.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that?
I guess I'm OK with the idea I'm finite and will never be able to know all things - that no one will ever be able to know all things. I speculate consciousness, at least in part, laps into that unknowable realm.
I see no reason why we can't discover all that is possible to know about consciousness; it seems to me that the objective description and subjective experience are two 'views' of the same thing - physical brain activity.
But I think a problem may be that some people won't find the answers they're looking for or expect to find because their questions may be based on false premises. IOW, we're discovering that, in many ways, our phenomenal experience is misleading - for example, we experience the activity of multiple functional 'modules' in our brain as an integrated coherent whole, our perceptions are modified to make them consistent with our expectations, and so-on.
It may be that the 'hard problem' of consciousness will reduce to brute fact - that we'll find that when systems perform the particular kinds of information processing that brains perform, they will have subjective experience, and that we'll eventually understand how this occurs; from this it would follow that we could, in principle, make truly sentient artificial systems (though whether it would be practical is another matter).
It seems you don't want to go there.
I don't know where you got that from. I'm happy to go anywhere it's possible to go in this subject. Ideally, I would like to everything of interest that is possible to know about consciousness. But I seriously doubt I'll be around long enough for all the interesting questions to be answered.
