But he isn't talking about "first-person experience", he specifically said "consciousness". Which is a confused word. He can't give any solid definition to it,

But he isn't talking about "first-person experience", he specifically said "consciousness". Which is a confused word. He can't give any solid definition to it, not without using other similar and "fuzzy" words. He can't give any test that distinguishes "consciousness" from "non-consciousness". You can say "that's the point of the hard problem", but that's as silly as making up a "hard problem of defining blegness". And insisting that I have "blegness" but refusing to define what I mean by that. The problem of consciousness is a purely empirical question. That is we can examine the brain, and we can figure out how it works. We can find a set of rules that explains human behavior. In theory, we could even model human behavior so well that we can understand exactly why some people insist they have "consciousness". We could record the neurons that fire to produce that thought, and we can trace back to what structures because it. And once such a detailed model exists, there is nothing left to explain! We would know exactly why people are saying they feel "conscious" or "blegness". There would be no need to introduce weird philosophies or supernatural beliefs.