I guess the way I see it, given that we don't currently have a way to test for consciousness, inventing invisible "consciousness-stuff" is just a solution in se

I guess the way I see it, given that we don't currently have a way to test for consciousness, inventing invisible "consciousness-stuff" is just a solution in search of a problem. We are supposing that it is necessary with no evidence. > The analogy that occurs to me is that you're assembling a really complex jigsaw puzzle and expecting it to fly. I would though. More precisely -- if I looked at a real airplane and modeled it with, say, balsa wood and a rubber-band propeller, even with no understanding of why airplanes fly, I would expect it to fly, and I think that would be reasonable. I don't think that I would think, because flight is so fundamentally different than what wood and rubber bands normally do, that a "real" airplane must be also composed of some invisible "flight-stuff" that I cannot harness for my model. Even if I say, neglected to angle the propeller blades or wings correctly, so it did not fly or even move on its first attempt, supposing a new branch of physics would not be my go-to explanation. I do see your point though about consciousness being a qualia and philosophical zombies (thanks for introducing me to that term). It's supremely challenging to conceptualize who is the "me" who is experiencing consciousness.