Hard Problem of the G Factor

The statistical reality that performance on diverse cognitive tests tends to correlate, suggesting a single, underlying general intelligence factor (*g*). The hard problem is figuring out what *g* physically is in the brain. Is it neural processing speed? Efficient connectivity? Working memory capacity? Or is it just a mathematical phantom emerging from the way we design tests? It's the hunt for the biological engine of intellectual horsepower, separate from specific skills or knowledge.

Example: "Neuroscientists found a correlation between *g* and prefrontal cortex efficiency. But the hard problem of the g factor remains: Is that efficiency the cause of general intelligence, or just another symptom of a deeper, still-mysterious root? It's like finding a bigger battery in smarter people, but not knowing what the battery actually powers." Hard Problem of the G Factor

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Logic

The unsettling question of why logic, a human-invented system of symbols and rules, seems to perfectly describe and predict the behavior of the universe. It's the gap between our mental abstractions (If P then Q) and the stubborn consistency of natural laws. Why is the cosmos not just orderly, but logical? Does logic exist "out there" as a fundamental structure of reality, waiting to be discovered, or is it just a profoundly useful fiction our brains project onto chaos? It's the problem of whether mathematics is invented or discovered, applied to the rules of reasoning itself.

Example: "We built AIs that use flawless logic, and they keep predicting quantum experiments wrong. The hard problem of logic is asking if the universe itself has a bug, or if our logic is just a convincing local operating system that crashes when it tries to run reality's full, weird code."

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Rationality

The paradox that the tool we use to evaluate truth—rationality—cannot be justified using purely rational means without circular reasoning. Why should we be rational? Because it's effective? That's a pragmatic, not rational, argument. Rationality rests on axioms (like "the world is consistent") that must be assumed, not proven. The hard problem is that rationality is the judge, jury, and executioner of thought, but it can't put itself on trial without presupposing its own validity.

Example: "He tried to use pure rationality to convince his friend to be rational. 'You should value logic because... it's logical?' He hit the hard problem of rationality: the foundation of reason isn't a brick; it's a turtle floating in mid-air, and asking 'why?' just makes it fall."

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Reason

Closely tied to rationality, but focused on the faculty itself. How can reason, a product of blind evolutionary processes that selected for survival, not truth, be trusted to uncover objective truths about reality? Our brains were shaped to find patterns, avoid predators, and secure mates—not to solve metaphysics. The hard problem is whether reason is a cracked lens that happensto work in our middle-world, or a genuine pipeline to capital-T Truth.

*Example: "Our reason tells us quantum mechanics is true, even though it's utterly unreasonable. The hard problem of reason is wondering if our minds, built to throw spears and spot lions, have any business trusting their conclusions about non-local hidden variables or 11-dimensional strings."*

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Skepticism

The self-devouring realization that consistent, radical skepticism leads to the paralysis of not being able to trust any knowledge, including the knowledge that skepticism is a valid approach. If you doubt everything, on what grounds do you justify the act of doubting? The hard problem is that skepticism is a powerful tool for clearing intellectual weeds, but it eventually turns on the garden it's supposed to protect, leaving no ground to stand on.

Example: "She was such a pure skeptic she doubted her own senses, memories, and the laws of physics. The hard problem of skepticism hit when she tried to explain her philosophy: to communicate, she had to assume language, logic, and my ability to understand—all things her skepticism supposedly rejected. She just sighed deeply."

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Positivism

The central flaw in the idea that only verifiable, empirical statements are meaningful. The hard problem is that the core principle of positivism—"only statements verified by empirical observation are meaningful"—is itself not verifiable by empirical observation. It's a metaphysical claim about meaning, making it self-refuting. It tries to use philosophy to declare philosophy useless, like using a ladder to climb up and then kicking it away.

Example: "The old-school positivist declared ethics and art 'nonsense' because they couldn't be tested in a lab. The hard problem of positivism was that his own declaration was, by his own standard, nonsense. He was left silently judging everyone with a philosophy he claimed didn't exist."

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Neopositivism

The more sophisticated successor's struggle: trying to ground science and meaning in logic and empirical data while wrestling with the realization that observation is theory-laden, and no final, pure "protocol sentence" exists. The hard problem is that the boundary between analytic (logic/math) and synthetic (empirical) statements, which the whole system relied on, turned out to be blurry. Quine's "web of belief" showed you can't test a single statement in isolation—you can always save a cherished hypothesis by adjusting other parts of the network.

Example: "The neopositivist insisted science was just cumulative facts. The hard problem hit when a paradigm shift made him reject facts he'd previously sworn were verified. He realized the 'facts' were never raw data; they were stories he believed until a better story came along." Hard Problem of Neopositivism

by Abzugal January 30, 2026