Complexity and simplicity are all words. Words are part of language. Language is complex but it’s also the only tool we have. I would say Language and Thought are one and the same. We haven’t made Language purely descriptive yet. Language is Complexity and so is Thought. Why do we have the tendency if not the need to clarify? It’s because we’re going to the source of all Thought. To put it simply, if Thought is all there is to consciousness then we simply need to refine Language as efficiently as possible. But, if there is an underlying reality to consciousness then when we acquire perfection everything will have been described sufficiently. But, tbh, that is not the case. There are mathematical probabilities and improbabilities which are directly antithetical to the possibility of attaining perfection in the form of pure description. Only what’s thoroughly and transparently descriptive is the highest form of perfection going by current definition.
Qualia or rather what we think of as such when we speak of consciousness, is not an accurate enough term. Qualia refers to conscious experiences or the feeling of being alive. The two are not the same. Experience is a fragment. The feeling is not. All descriptions are currently insufficient to clarify anything. To find the first cause may be a task ill-suited to the realm of Thought.
I do not feel there is a first cause speaking in terms of the precision of Language as being abundant in pointing out the physical reality. Language by it’s nature or at least the way it’s always been and is currently being used is not clarifying. It’s not essential and thus without substance.
Can one quantify Thought? Is it possible to put it into a mathematical form of expression? Is math most vivid? Are there forms underlying the nature of pure description itself? Are these forms tacked onto the nothingness of the universe or do they precede existence? To me forms are primordial and the blueprint of the ultimate reality. I once said that the appropriate feeling has to match the form and that they can only be felt. This encourages an all too familiar notion of a certain feeling being the perfect match of a particular form. I even gave the erroneous analogy of a feeling and a form fitting together immaculately like Lego blocks. I now retract this analogy because forms might be fragmented but feelings are wholesome.
But, on second thought, a form may be neither a fragment nor any other concept we can come up with. Simply put as stated above, all our tools are limited in scope and functionality to the task at hand.
What then can be done to gain answers to the haunting questions of life? Maybe not much in the form of logic. There’s plenty of work still to be done.
TL;DR: What I’m saying is that there is a need to distinguish between feeling (qualia/ embodied consciousness) and Thought (descriptive/analytic processes). What is this activity of thought? Are consciousness and Thought related? Does one lead to the other? “Lead” implies movement of some form. What is movement here? The reason we can’t describe efficiently much less sufficiently is because Thought is incomplete. Does any of the descriptions of anything and everything ever given, satisfy this case of incompleteness? One can’t say we will eventually get there. That statement itself is illogical. There is no progress possible if it isn’t realizable without errors. Any error introduced into thinking is gonna give us the wrong answers. The liberties we took for granted in our experiments pertaining to Thought or otherwise will no longer be enough to solve “The Problem”. That’s what I call it because it can’t be solved. It is safe to admit that it’s permanently outside the realm of Thought.