The Hard Problem
Overview
The Hard Problem is often framed as a question: why should a given function be accompanied by experience? 'Experience' and 'function' are (conceivably) different kinds of phenomenon, so no explanation for the latter can ever bridge the gap to the former on its own merits.
Whether this question has force is typically motivated by some separate argument contained in this section, such as an explanatory gap argument, a p-zombie argument, or a knowledge argument, and so is best addressed via those motivating arguments. Nonetheless, it is common framing in the literature and worth including in this list. It also helps illustrate the limits of any conceivable explanation for consciousness, as with other forms of knowledge.
Responses
Interpreted as an explanatory regress, there is never a final answer to the Hard Problem, because a deeper 'why' can always be asked of any level of explanation.
To make progress as a community, we instead need different ways of evaluating/contrasting the quality of alternative answers. The subjective impression of whether a given explanation is 'satisfying' is inadequate, noting that some might find dualist/panpsychist/dual-aspect responses to the Hard Problem inherently satisfying while others do not. Moreover, any such explanation can always have 'why' levied at it, with security only ever eventually granted by tautology in all cases.
Like any causal explanation, at some point an answer needs to be 'assumed' and then we test its utility, coherence, and ability to meet various requirements levied at it (such assumptions are often called bridging principles or psychophysical laws in the Hard Problem literature).
Further reading
- Chalmers D (1995). Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness