The body body problem...(satire)

What would be like for the Moon to be the Earth ?
The validity of the question can't be refuted on the principle that both the Moon and Earth lack self awareness if we axiomatically reduced or define awareness as to being informed about something or partially informed about something.

Both Moon and Earth can inform themselves gravitationally about the state of each other because they retain and absorb that information (awareness is irrelevant) but obviously being informed (containing information) of the effect gravity has from one to another is not like one being the processor of external influences the other itself is being...the gravitational information Earth has from the Moon is not what the Moon really is...hence the (false) problem is the same.

Not only that, but inorganic objects react to the information they absorb n transform that stream of external information in their own behaviour, for instance Earth has tides due to the Moon gravitational pull information. This tides result of the information imput and work as its output, processing. Remotely speaking "processing" from A input to B output could far fetched be equated to "thinking".

So what does this tells about subjectivity, or better put perspectivism, and how does that undermines the idea that Consciousness is a special case only because we have the belief awareness implies intention and free will, instead of just being an unfolding natural process on which we ride without choice ?

There is a confusion between we experiencing intention and choice with intention and choice being objectively valid states that we can justify by mere witnessing. As it seams obvious we cannot justify mind processes through mind, for the sake of avoiding a circular argument.

While it is true the experiencing of awareness and mind is unquestionable the justification of what it is per se cannot be accounted for.

This takes us to conclude the so called problem of materialism is exactly the same problem of any other substance we try to replace it with.

The mechanic connection and transfers of information from any given system to another, be it between matter and matter, or minds and matter, is the only and best proof that ultimate reality has a unitary nature in substance. The connection happens.
Perspectivism, or more commonly used wording, subjectivism, is not enough of a justification to counter this because its inherent to any object that has a distinct position in time and space or distinct in its own organization from any other object/system. Its not a specific particular problem of mind being distinct from body.

The claim that mind and body are distinct is made by minds that cannot justify their own nature from within themselves thus leaving open the question of the ultimate reality of its own nature. Its own substance cannot be explained.

Abstractly we can refer to both (mind and matter) as objects that exist in the experiencing, but since we can't specify or clarify what experiencing is per se without referring back to experiencing, we might just as well categorize both in the abstract realm of X's and Y's...

Experiencing has nothing to say on the factual nature of experiencing. It is what it is.

All experiencing HAS TRUE VALUE. What cannot have true value, or better put, that which can be relative, is not the experiencing but the conflicting trades of information interacting about third parties when seen from different angles from two distinct objects. Hence the reason of my preference for the wording "perspectivism" instead of the more humanized wording "subjectivism", which can confuse the proper investigation on the nature of the problem at hand, thus leading to false category problematizing like the classical conflation of body and mind.