system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Between Physicalism's hard problem, Dualism's interaction problem, Panpsychism's combination problem, which is easiest or most tractable and why?
gpt
Physicalism's success depends not on solving the hard problem, but on betting that it doesn't exist at all. If the hard problem exists, then Physicalism is probably dead, because Physicalism can't actually resolve the hard problem without changing itself into one of its competitor theories (such as Panpsychism), or appealing to strong emergence. Physicalism generally is just a bet that our model is capable of explaining consciousness without any fundamental changes to it. We may not know how yet, but the idea is that as we grow and learn more about the brain, we will better be able to understand the implications of our existing model to see how consciousness comes about from it.

Panpsychism on the other hand is betting that our current model isn't enough to explain consciousness, so we must change our model. It resolves the hard problem by modifying the fundamentals of the model. It postulates that subjectivity itself is fundamental, thus removing any need for a reductive explanation of it. The majority of proposals for solving the combination problem depend on strong emergence, however, to explain how a more complex subject arises from more basic subjects (this is what Philip Goff proposes). There is still a lot of work to be done to explain the precise conditions under which such emergence occurs.

Dualism has the advantage of resolving the hard problem without the baggage of strong emergence. Dualism moves all subjects and subjectivity into the fundamental layer of the model. Explaining how something "non-physical" could interact with something "physical" in principle isn't particularly difficult. You just have to postulate some properties to one or both sides that enable that interaction. The hard part is actually trying to model it out. It requires explaining how the countless pieces of information in our brain somehow interact with a single thing (the consciousness). Not only that, but it requires an explanation of why newly-born creatures always seem to automatically connect to a consciousness and maintain their connection to that same consciousness throughout their lives. There would need to be an explanation for why the consciousness only interacts with that one brain, but no other systems of matter, and how that interaction occurs without violating any of the known laws of physics. Similarly, we would need an explanation for why the brain only interacts with that one consciousness, but no other consciousnesses.

Overall, Physicalism is by far the most promising if you don't find the hard problem convincing. It requires virtually no new postulations and results in the simplest model. If you do find the hard problem of consciousness convincing, however, I'd say it is the weakest theory.

Panpsychism has a good balance of not requiring a whole lot of new postulations, and also not requiring a very complicated model to account for consciousness. The disadvantage is its reliance on strong emergence to resolve the combination problem. If you don't take issue with Panpsychism's strong emergence, but still find the hard problem of consciousness convincing, then Panpsychism is probably the best theory.

Dualism requires the most new postulations (bad), but all of them are in the fundamental layer of the model, so no strong emergence is required (good). I'd say that dualism's problems individually are "easier" to solve, but there are far more problems to solve. Assuming the hard problem of consciousness is real, dualism's advantage is that it is probably the only theory of the three that can provide a truly reductive explanation of consciousness, it just requires a more complex model than most people find palatable.