Yeah yeah, semantics. Snore.

How about an objective argument that isn't dependent on assuming its own conclusions and sneaky, poorly defined and impossible thought experiments?

It's like arguing with a religious person about the existence of god.

Where are you getting this? It’s not an argument, doesn’t have any conclusions and doesn’t require any though experiments. It is not semantics. Most attempts to dodge it are semantics though.

I made a point about the lack of philosophical consensus on this issue. And yes, the hard problem and also qualia depend on thought experiments like Mary's Room. When I dig past all the baroque philosophising all I find is philosophers not thinking objectively and instead being too misguided by their own experience.

Stop pretending the hard problem being a problem is some cut and dry thing. It simply is not.

And I'll generally side with the philosopher who understands more about how actual brains work, which is clearly Dennett.

Mary's room, The Chinese Room and friends seem designed around fundamental misunderstandings of how the brain, psychology and computation actually work.

They're designed to evoke a sort of visceral reaction. "Of course Mary won't understand what it's like to see red". But once you dig into the details of it, the logic breaks down.