Because all that Philosophy has every fixated on for the last - EVER is definition! Semantics.
What do words mean? What IS meaning?
Great! It sounds like you know exactly what those terms mean. But I don't (because I can't read your mind). Go ahead and define them.
Philosophy is (and has always been) the game of expressing your thoughts in a language other people can understand. Philosophy teaches you HOW to USE language. Philosophy doesn't teach you what language IS and HOW language works. Computer science does.
If a couple of marbles in NY collide and cause pigs to fly in Beijing then a couple of marbles collided and caused pigs to fly in Beijing. Why is that a problem to you?
WHY aren't you happy with that?
Are you saying you don't WANT that to happen?
Great! Lets talk about your wants, needs and desires - that would be a very human conversation. But lets not pretend that the conversation has anything to do with "the state of affairs", and everything to do with our discontentment with it.
It OUGHT to be different! Right?
Sure. Dualism/monism - it's just definitions.
The fundamental challenge with dualism is the problem of mental causality.
Just because nobody has an answer for HOW experience happens, it doesn't mean that it DOESN'T happen.
The problem is that if science (which only ever gives causal answers, A -> B) can't explain/account how experience emerges, then nothing can explain it. So where does that leave you in asking the question?
Yes, but it's LESS mystical than "something completely unknown, undetectable and beyond human comprehension gives rise to experience"!
You are committing the fallacy which Isac Asimov calls "The Relativity of Wrong".
When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
Both views are wrong. One of those views is less wrong.
Yes. One leap, not two. Dualism requires to take another kind of leap: it requires you to reject causality.
If that's what panpsychism is then that's not what my claim is. My view is mind-matter inter-dependence.
Mind and matter are the same thing - humans create the difference. Through definitions.
It's not mystical if you are a Monist. Everything in the Universe is "chemical reactions" therefore subjective experience is a chemical reaction. What else could it be?
All you have done is you've adopted the language (perspective?) of chemistry.
If you had adopted the language (perspective?) of quantum physics there are no such things as chemical reactions.
There are only wave functions. Everything in the Universe is "wave functions" therefore "subjective experience" is a wave function. "Chemical reactions" are also wave functions. What else could they be?
Rinse, repeat for every other language/perspective.
What do you think "the basics" are, exactly?
So why are you dichotomising it then?
Does a chemical reaction, or a wave function give rise to consciousness?
If you choose agnosticism the answer is "I don't know" (maybe we will find out, maybe we won't)
if you choose monism the answer is "yes" (if there's an answer - this is the way to go)
if you choose dualism the answer is "no" (and there is no hope of ever getting an answer).
How do you choose one?
You do realise that the "3rd person perspective" is imagined, right?
That perspective IS subjective experience. And so that which you are calling "the universe" at this very moment IS subjective experience. It's all in your head.
Yes! The explanatory gap starts with you defining what an "explanation" is! And the reason why you think all of the above things "miss the point" is because you've never tried to define "definition".
Can you define "definition" ? What does it mean to define something? What does it mean for consciousness to define itself?
Is consciousness defining itself the same thing as defining "definition"?
It's precisely because you take these things as "self-evident" (instead of being sceptical!) is why you miss the importance and significance of recursion/self-reference.
You can't define "definition", but through defining things (over and over and over and over again) you develop an empirical understanding of what a definition IS.
That's what programming is. Practice! Practice! Practice! Practice!
Everything that Philosophy can teach you about language games - about using, learning and inventing meaningful new languages, Computer Science can teach you better.