Qualianomics presents a coherence-based resolution of the Hard Problem of consciousness by grounding subjective experience in the fundamental architecture of coherence rather than deriving it from matter, computation, or neural activity. Within this framework, qualia are defined as boundary-stabilized coherence invariants: stable internal appearances generated when a subject-field locks onto invariant structures of the world across a coherent experiential boundary. Experience is the internal mode of coherence; matter is its external mode. The brain functions as an interface, routing and modulating coherence, but does not generate subjectivity itself. By integrating coherence geometry, holographic reduction, Gibsonian perceptual invariance, a Gibbons-type boundary principle, the Meta-Operator of consciousness and observation, and holonomy-based invariant formation, Qualianomics reframes multiple hard problems as consequences of ontological layer inversion. The result is a mathematical ontology of experience capable of bridging phenomenology, perception theory, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, coherence physics, and the formal study of qualia. The mystery of qualia begins with a simple fact: experience exists. There is redness. There is pain. There is joy. There is meaning. There is something it is like to be. Most theories attempt to explain experience by starting from matter, neurons, computation, or information. Qualianomics begins differently. It begins with coherence as fundamental. Experience is what coherence feels like from within. The brain does not create experience from nothing. It routes, modulates, and stabilizes coherence. The world does not merely send data into the mind. It presents invariant structures. The subject does not merely receive information. It locks coherently onto these invariants, and this boundary-locking appears internally as qualia. Thus, qualia are not illusions, computational labels, or private mysteries floating above physics. They are the internal geometry of coherence itself.
Philip Lilien (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: