Could consciousness be explained in scientific terms?
In other words, could this essential first-person or subjective viewpoint — one that we all have on ourselves! — be explained in the third-person or objective terms of science? Or is there something about consciousness that somewhat necessarily escapes scientific understanding?
On one side, David Chalmers and Bernard Kastrup argue that phenomenal consciousness (how things seem to us when we are aware of them) is a real problem for science, or at least for any scientific worldview which regards matter, energy, and space time as what’s fundamentally real (see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/). On the other side, Daniel Dennett and Keith Frankish defend a view that they call “illusionism”: that consciousness as conceptualized in terms direct awareness of qualia is deeply mistaken.
What do you see as the main points in favor of the qualia-conception of consciousness and the functional conception of consciousness? Do you think it makes sense that there could be (logically speaking!) “zombies”: beings that act and talk exactly as we do, but without any awareness at all? What could a science of consciousness look like? Do you think that “neurophenomenology” is a good method for a scientific investigation of consciousness? Why or why not?
* answer the questions that are bold in one or two paragraphs. pls make it easy and do not use any complicate words or sentences