This article isn't supposed to solve the hard problem by itself; rather, I'm pointing to the possibility of a backdoor solution. Specifically, I'm removing some blinders, clearing the table so we can be clear about our options.
I don't think nature's monstrousness is wholly subjective since it falls out of science's objectification of nature. I also ground that monstrousness in nature's wildness, which is implicit in quantum mechanics and the variety of natural constructs. (I talk about that in the articles below).
The question about ontology is a good one. I don't think "materialism" clarifies much, given how matter is equivalent to energy, and matter reduces to something virtually immaterial that corresponds to string theory math. I aim to be a naturalist, so I base my philosophy on science.
How are qualia compatible with a universe made out of objective (mindless) matter? We might just as well ask how matter is compatible with black holes that eat spacetime, or how a relativistic natural order is compatible with a much weirder quantum one. The answer isn't just that some mysteries remain, but that nature is fundamentally wild. Nature seems to create everything that can evolve from chaotic quantum fluctuations.
But I should write something on ontology since I aim to be both a naturalist and a humanist, and those two philosophical principles are in tension. Potentially, that kind of dualistic worldview is incoherent.
I don't think the talk of nature's wild fecundity is an empty appeal to mystery. It's an appeal to aesthetics to make sense of an alien mode of productivity. That mode is real, not just in our heads. Indeed, we must stretch our minds to begin to comprehend it.
Maybe we've found our next subject for a dialogue (ontology)?
