Thanks for the reply.
“Seeing your response, “But that would be a model of the brain biochemistry, not of the experience itself,” I realize that I think those things are one and the same. Why do you think of the model of brain activity and the model of experience would be different?”
They are certainly not the same thing. The Identity Theory in the philosophy of mind was more or less destroyed. The best way of putting it is through Leibniz’s Law of Identity. That is, if everything true of x is also true of y, then x and y are one and the same thing. So take the experience of a red rose. Is everything true of your experience also true of the neuroscientific and external facts which underpin that experience? Of course not. The brain is not red, it doesn’t smell like a rose, etc.
“Are you thinking of the experience from a psychological perspective?”
Basically, though consciousness is the most basic fact of a person’s psychology — and also the most strange (at least from a scientific viewpoint).
“Within our lifetime, I think. Of course there is always room for deeper understanding.”
I agree. Never say “never”.
“What would you want a model of consciousness to look like?”
I don’t know. Chalmers talks a lot about “the structure of consciousness” and Integrated Information Theory does too. And we have phenomenology. However, I don’t know if these disciplines and people offer us models.
“I wouldn’t say I find Chalmers annoying.”
No, I just meant some/many of the cognitive scientists and neuroscientists I’ve read do.
As for Awake & Alive Mind, can you add me as a writer. So I can simply “add to publication”, as I’ve done with Becoming Human and Data Science.
As for pieces on consciousness. Much of my stuff I write (on most philosophical subjects) is introductory and educational. Nonetheless, it also contains much philosophy/analysis. Sometimes that philosophy/analysis is fairly complicated and may include technical terms which people are unfamiliar with. Still, I usually write for educated people — not narrow experts.