Beginning with Thomas Nagel, various philosophers have proposed setting conscious experience apart from all other problems of the mind as “the most difficult problem.” When critically examined, the basis for this proposal reveals itself to be unconvincing and counter-productive. Use of our current ignorance as a premise to determine what we can never discover is one common logical flaw. Use of “I-cannot-imagine” arguments is a related flaw. When not much is known about a domain of phenomena, people’s inability to imagine a mechanism is a rather uninteresting psychological fact about them, not an interesting metaphysical fact about the world. Rather than worrying too much about the meta-problem of whether or not consciousness is uniquely hard, the author proposes that people get on with the task of seeing how far they get when they address neurobiologically the problems of mental phenomena.
