It seems like a lot of writing, including this, that might otherwise aspire to ‘solve the hard problem of consciousness’ instead attempts to explain why experie

It seems like a lot of writing, including this, that might otherwise aspire to ‘solve the hard problem of consciousness’ instead attempts to explain why experience is needed, or how it came to be advantageous and evolve, and not how it is possible at all. It therefore sheds very little or no light at all on consciousness. Any attempt to ‘solve’ the hard problem of consciousness that doesn’t explain how conscious experience is possible at all is a failed attempt. And explaining how it is possible at all would need to refer to some mechanism by which matter (or some other thing) can experience anything and not just be experienced. Nobody in the physical sciences or philosophy has truly attempted this because the answer may in fact live at some epistemological boundary that we can't access in part due to our own subjectivity. I still hold hope that some future experiment (i.e. a discovery of a real and verifiable ability to transfer consciousness) can shed some light on this fundamental mystery, but it may very well be impossible. In the meantime, I am not sure that speculation of the kind that exists in this article is of any use at all.