I would say neither. It's easy to define the hard problem in a way that allows a neat theory. The problem is that you are alone with your definition of the problem, nobody is interested in the solution.
In philosophy the devil is in the details. I have 60 pages of hand written notes about consciousness just from trying to map different issues related to monism and panpsychism before I gave up.
But you are right about the social problem- consciousness studies is terribly fragmented, and everyone agrees it is mostly full of nonsense (only disagreeing about which parts are nonsense).
Motivating serious examination by domain experts is extremely difficult - completely independently of the coherency of your ideas, and to some extent even of your pedigree.
You can try to solve this social problem by personally climbing the status hierarchy. Or by doing your best to distill a convincing introduction to a few minutes of reading.
This is an attempt at the latter.
That's something I don't agree. It's not a social problem. It's a problem with your own intellectual effort. The problem is not coherence, its relevance and completeness. If you make an argument that shows that you are familiar with the problem setting in deep level, you have an audience among domain experts in philosophy.
The problem with amateur philosophers like you an me is that we want to talk more than listen.
—
This short article will characterize the kinematical tension at the heart of the Hard Problem: a mismatch between our model of the universe and 2 specific qualities we implicitly ascribe to consciousness (qualities which may be called ‘classical indescribability’ & ‘non-emergent integration’.) Then, having reframed the Hard Problem as a precise & explicit problem of kinematics (physics), we’ll go on to motivate, outline, and reference an experimentally falsifiable resolution to the problem of consciousness.
Kinematics is all you need.
