[psyphy]

Heh, one thing I can tell you- it is NOT easy to define the hard problem in a way that allows a neat theory. It took me a couple of physics degrees + years of work, and really, a lifetime of obsession. And I am not done yet.

But you are right about the social problem- consciousness studies is terribly fragmented, and everyone agrees it is mostly full of nonsense (only disagreeing about which parts are nonsense).

Motivating serious examination by domain experts is extremely difficult - completely independently of the coherency of your ideas, and to some extent even of your pedigree.

You can try to solve this social problem by personally climbing the status hierarchy. Or by doing your best to distill a convincing introduction to a few minutes of reading.

This is an attempt at the latter.

[nabla9]

>You can try to solve this social problem by personally climbing the status hierarchy.

That's something I don't agree. It's not a social problem. It's a problem with your own intellectual effort. The problem is not coherence, its relevance and completeness. If you make an argument that shows that you are familiar with the problem setting in deep level, you have an audience among domain experts in philosophy.

The problem with amateur philosophers like you an me is that we want to talk more than listen.

[psyphy]

> The problem with amateur philosophers like you an me is that we want to talk more than listen.

that's some healthy self-awareness :) (for someone jumping to conclusions without bothering to read the introduction to the linked paper, and without knowledge of who read it and what they thought of it- which may surprise you).

I truly have no animosity towards you, I am even glad you engaged. But meta-social discussions with "amateur philosophers" is indeed not what I am looking for. Farewell :-)