The Journal of Consciousness Studies has a great information page about the "Hard Problem". http://www.imprint.co.uk/hardprob.html
"One of the reasons for the current explosion of interest in the study of consciousness has been the development of new technologies for the study of the brain. This has given rise to a widespread optimism within the neuroscience community that a theory of consciousness could be just around the corner.
However many commentators have pointed out that although there has been undoubted progress in the study of the neural correlates of consciousness, there is still an 'explanatory gap.' What sort of theory would it take to bridge the gap between brain processes and phenomenal experience?
Philosopher David Chalmers gave eloquent expression to this at the first Tucson conference, when he drew a distinction between the 'easy problems' (cognitive functions like discrimination and the focus of attention) and the 'hard problem' (why should any of this be accompanied by phenomenal experience?)."
In addition to the published papers abstracted on that page, there is an exponentially increasing amount being published, debated, and said relating to this controversial issue. The goal of this topic in the Canonizer is to collaboratively generate concise statements describing the various "camps" on this issue and to come up with a quantitative measure or survey of how many people, and who these people are, in each of these "camps" on all sides of this issue.
Wikipedia has a great article about the facts dealing with the Hard Problem of Consciousness. It is located here:
There are more than a few theories about how this problem will or will not be resolved by science in the future; a few of which are mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
In addition to this type of factual information, the goal of the Canonizer is to concisely collect and specify each of these various "camps" or "theories" about such things as the nature of consciousness. Also, we would like to have a comprehensive and quantitative measure of just who it is that is in each of the various camps on such issues.
If you have done any amount of thinking on this topic, hold any opinions on it, (or trust someone who has already contributed that has) we hope to concisely collect all such here. If your POV is already represented, please join or support and help more concisely state such in the POV statement for that camp. If your POV isn't yet here, I hope you get a statement started to give voice to all others that end up sharing your POV. If you are not an expert in this field, but you trust someone that is, we hope you will delegate your support to that person, giving what that person believes more influence in deciding what scientists should spend most of their time looking for.