Really hard problem of consciousness

Hard problem of consciousness is described in Wikipedia. It is also described in the article by Chris King.

Well, luckily I am not mathematician and very proud of it because mathematicians used to expose their minds/brains to extremely puzzling questions and problems. The extremity of puzzling can be so huge that the minds/brains can collapse as wave-functions.  Some examples:

Subjective consciousness may be necessary for the actualization of physical reality, and thus fundamental to physical existence in a cosmological sense, as expressed in the anthropic cosmological principle’ that ‘observers are significant and possibly necessary boundary conditions for the existence of the universe (Barrow and Tipler 1988).

Not bad, right?

“It is a psychological fact that we believe we have the ability to control and modify our actions by the exercise of ‘will’, and in practical life all sane men will assume they have this ability” (Hooper and Teresi 1986). However this premise, which is basic to all human action, contradicts physical determinism, because any action of mind on brain contradicts the brain functioning as a deterministic computational machine, in its own right, in the physical world.

A confluence between quantum physics and the science of mind may resolve this apparent paradox. Firstly physics has difficulty determining when collapse of the wave function from a set of probabilities into an actual choice takes place, leading to some interpretations in which the conscious observer collapses the wave function. Secondly quantum uncertainty and non-locality provide exactly the types of explanation which could enable the subjective experience of free-will to be consistent with a non-deterministic model of brain function. The unpredictability of chaos (Stewart, Schuster) due to its amplification of arbitrarily small fluctuations in what is known as ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions, could provide a means to link quantum indeterminacy to global brain states.

I am done… but let’s continue:

Some physicists think the wave function never ‘collapses - all the possibilities happen and there is a probability universe for each case. This is the many-worlds interpretation of Hugh Everett III. The universe then becomes a superabundant superimposed set of all possible probability futures, and indeed all pasts as well, in a smeared out ‘holographic’ multi-verse in which everything happens. It suffers from a key difficulty. All the experience we have suggests just one possibility is chosen in each situation - the one we actually experience. Some scientists thus think collapse depends on a conscious observer. Many worlds defenders claim an observer wouldn’t see the probability branching because they too would be split but this leaves us either with infinite split consciousness, or all we lose all forms of decision-making process, all forms of historicity in which there is a distinct line of history, in which watershed events do actually occur, and the role of memory in representing it.

Well, it’s enough for today…  I need a vacation to get rid of this article.

I think I understand pharmacology, chemistry, medicine, and some aspects of biology pretty well but not in the same extent as Chris King does the mind-breaking definitions! Respect!