Hi Paul,

Thanks, and thanks for the discussion.

I'll read your article when I get a chance, but I have always had a hard time with Chalmers's idea that consciousness is superfluous. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could do long-term planning without any sense of whether the planned outcome will be good or bad for the planner. And I don't know how one can know that without a sense of themselves and what they like and don't. Without a self, it's pretty much "me hungry, me eat."

It seems really hard to coordinate action over any period of time without knowing what you want. Also, we need to know what others want and might do. To know that we need the basic concept of the self of others unfolding over weeks and months, as well as our own.

As to qualia, I just don't get it. Our nervous systems are complex and full of sensations. Everything that happens feels like something. Having a neocortex that can process and reflect on the way red looks or feels, to use the common example, seems as unmysterious as could be.

When I try to understand what Chalmers and others are talking about, I feel like I must not be smart enough to understand the basic concept.

OR, they are complicating a simple matter. I also find that hard to believe, so that has given me great pause.

A lot of my thinking comes from the Jeff Hawkins book I mention at the bottom. I'm not sure if he gets into the idea of the brain sensing its own processes, but he finds no hard problem there highly recommend his book, and I see he has a brand new one! If you can, read chapter seven of On Intelligence.

What is your thinking of the origin of consciousness? Do you sense a duality of some kind? Or do you see consciousness as a material consequence of our brain function.

Thanks again.