>>13974269You are fundamentally misunderstanding the hard problem.
First, understand that "consciousness" is not behavioral consciousness. We are not talking about what it looks like for someone to be awake and conscious versus, say, them sleeping. What is being discussed here might be called "subjective" or "experiential" consciousness. It might be likened to the "movie" that plays in your head as you live, or what is temporarily lost when you go under anesthesia.
Second, understand that the apparent fact that subjective consciousness is irrevocably tied to physical phenomena (the brain) does NOT have anything to say about the hard problem. We already know that drugs alter experiential consciousness, and being able to induce perception changes via brain manipulation is, in a crude way of putting it, a fancy drug.
The hard problem is not primarily about the link between the brain and subjective consciousness, but instead about the very essence of subjective consciousness. What the hell is it?
It appears as an epiphenomenon of the brain and brain activity to science, however this isn't a satisfactory explanation for a couple reasons. First, unlike other epiphenomena, consciousness appears to exist meaningfully and irreducible. Blood pressure is an epiphenomenon of little cells moving in your veins, and thus doesn't meaningfully exist beyond being a useful abstraction. Yet consciousness appears to exist, and is the first thing even apparent about existence as a human. Another example is all of math: it is something that is abstract and immaterial, but can be looked at as a type of information that has no real "substance" or otherwise "meaningful" existence beyond being an abstraction. Consciousness has an a priori "substance" and "meaning" arising from the nature of experience, but appears immaterial and unlike, say, atoms.
Consciousness appears meaningfully real, like atoms, but does not appear to be material. "What" is it made of? "Where" is it located?
