That's a just-so story. How did evolution produce conscious experiences? — Marchesk

Evolution doesn't "produce" our conscious awareness of our experiences. Evolution describes the conditions and facts under which specific biological traits provide survival advantages to biological organisms and thus make it to the next generation.(through changes in allele frequencies).
It turns out it is helpful for organisms who don't acquire nutrients, protection and mates through root in the ground, thorns/toxic substances and airborne pollen......to be able to be aware of their needs and environment and to be conscious of which action and behavior in order to will allow them to acquire food, shelter, avoid preditors and find mates.

Maxwell Richard Bennett is an Australian neuroscientist specializing in the function of synapses. He has published a large number of text books and journal articles on neuroscience. — Wayfarer

Australian(something is wrong with the water down there). Well he needs to do a better job. He needs to stop Strawmaning and understand the role of Neuroscience in our interdisciplinary study of the brain. Better he needs to keep his pseudo philosophical views outside his lab and stop making up excuses out of ignorance to bring them in. (If and only if you reproduce his statements correctly).

You don't demonstrate any understanding of philosophy. — Wayfarer

No for the type you are practicing. My philosophy is ALWAYS based on the latest scientific epistemology and on the actual goals of science....not on made up "problems".

As stated in that article, there is no scientific account for the subjective unity of experience. — Wayfarer

IS it really? You do understand that conscious states shuffle stimuli giving the illusion of unification through the property of memory?
He needs to update his science mate!

It can’t. — Wayfarer

Did you on purpose left the rest of my statement out? I hope it wasn't a dishonest practice but a decision of "economy of word".
My actual statement was:"Well neuroscience can only describe the brain mechanisms responsible for creating the subjective experience of being aware of our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, actions, memories (psychological contents) including the intimate experience of a unified self with the capacity to generate and control actions and psychological contents."
And the answer is "this is what it doesn't ". It verifies the Necessary and Sufficient role of a mechanism in the emergence of a mental state with specific characteristics

What [neuroscience] cannot do is replace the wide range of ordinary psychological explanations of human activities in terms of reasons, intentions, purposes, goals, values, rules and conventions by neurological explanations . . . . — Review of Bennett and Hacker, Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience

The dude who wrote the above doesn't understand the role of cognitive science and neuroscience....or he is trying to make a strawman for his ideology!
It's one thing to identify the responsible brain function for a mental state (this is what neuroscience does) and another to replace the wide range of psychological explanations with
the a dry anatomy of brain function.
There is a huge number of cases where Neuroscience identified specific mechanisms in areas linked to specific psychopathology and we now have technical solutions(treatments).
There is a reason why neuroscience is one discipline out of many in our attempt to decode the human brain.
The same is true for the rest of that article.
It a game of words and ambiguities.

If you want to criticize something, you first have to demonstrate that you understand it. — Wayfarer

Not my fault for your inability to understand the issue with "why" questions.

I have had near and dear relatives saved by neuroscience, for which I am eternally grateful, but that doesn't have any particular relevance to philosophy of mind. — Wayfarer

And the philosophy of mind you are referring to has nothing to do with the actual science and the real problems we have to map the functions of the brain.

Jerome Feldman isn't a Neuro or Cognitive scientist
— Nickolasgaspar
Makes no difference to the facts presented — Wayfarer

I start to believe that "cutting" parts of my post is what you do on purpose.

My actual statement was "Jerome Feldman isn't a Neuro or Cognitive scientist and even if he was his ideas would never render "why" questions on the quality of our subjective conscious awareness of our experiences a problem for our Objective study of brain mechanisms - enablers of the conscious awareness of our experiences."

So It does and I explained why these facts are baloney.

You need to be honest if you want to earn my time sir. Two red flags for answering a distorted statement of mine.....one more to go.

OK, science geeks, how do we determine whether an AI is conscious? What do we do? What tests do we give it? — RogueAI

It depends from the definition. If we
AI "consciousness" is based on the algorithmic process of data feeding prioritizing those which are beneficial or detrimental for the predefined goals of the program.
Biological consciousness mainly deals "finding" meaning in feelings. Stimuli produce emotions that exceed the threshold of intensity and become the content of a conscious state where they are analyzed for their meaning in relation to the current condition, state, intersts and needs of the organism.

You have a blind spot in respect of the issue at hand. 'Facing up to the hard problem of consciousness' is not trivial or redundant, but a statement about the inherent limitations of objective, third-person science with respect to the nature of first-person experience. — Wayfarer

First of all,made up pseudo philosophical ''why" problems are not "hard problems". The Evaluations of the quality of an experience is not a problem from our objective investigation of the mechanisms responsible for our ability to be conscious aware of our experiences.
i.e. we know that memories are stored in specific areas of the brain and we can become consciously aware of them (experience them) through the ability an extended brain mechanism to bring them "online"( connect them with others areas where Symbolic language, pattern recognition etc are store) and produce a meaningful experience of "remembering something" conscious state.
The ACTUAL content of that memory(conscious state) is IRRELEVANT to our investigation and understanding on how the brain does it.
Subjective is only the quality of the experienced state by an individual. The study of the mechanism responsible for retrieving "material" from a specific mental property (memory, old thought,biological stimuli (pain, thirst hunger),pattern etc) and sharing it with the rest of the stored properties in order to produce an experience is OBJECTIVE. This is why we found thousands of publications on mechanisms responsible for specific functions in a mental state.

The great thing is that we already have the technology to decode the content of an active conscious state allowing us to compare and identify common mechanisms in brains.

Jerome Feldman isn't a Neuro or Cognitive scientist and even if he was his ideas would never render "why" questions on the quality of our subjective conscious awareness of our experiences a problem for our Objective study of brain mechanisms - enablers of the conscious awareness of our experiences.

So, contrary to all of the journal articles that you continue to cite, the subjective unity of perception, which is a major aspect of the 'hard problem', remains unexplained, and indeed inexplicable, according to this paper, which essentially provides scientific validation for the argument made in Chalmer's original article. — Wayfarer

No it doesn't. Chalmer's asks Why questions. ITs like asking "why the intense wobbling of molecules is perceived as heat by our brains"....the answer will always be "BECAUSE"....... and Marc Solms through his new Theory on Consciousness will add "because it has evolutionary advantages to feel uncomfortable when your biology is exposed to a situation that has the potential to undermine your well being and your "being".
Chalmers's focuses on the wrong aspect of the problem. Anil Seth explains in detail why there is no value in trying asking "why" questions on the quality of the phenomenon. Its far more useful to find the mechanisms responsible and the "forces" that shaped their functions.
This is the only way to find how conscious states emerge, how they are affected and how we can improve them.
We have being doing it for decades, this is why we have Medications on psychopathology, this is why we have Brain Surgery protocols for different pathologies and this is why we can make Diagnosis (predictions) based on the physical condition of the organ (brain imagine).

The debate is over.....and philosophers didn't get the memo
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121175/

ITs scientifically outdated since its last update came back in ~2015(if I am correct),it makes unfounded assumptions for consciousness irreducibility to simple mechanisms, its insufficient and its so vague and sloppy in its formation and criteria that it can even justifies claims like "interconnected diodes are conscious). Its a theory of anything... not of a specific thing.
It appears to be a veiled attempt for a mathematical pretext for panpsychism.
The GIGO effect is present in this speculation.

Can you state in you own words how the brain generates consciousness? — bert1

I have done it many times....
I will include a description of the phenomenon and point to our current understanding of the responsible mechanism.
"Consciousness as used here, refers to the private, subjective experience of being aware of our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, actions, memories (psychological contents) including the intimate experience of a unified self with the capacity to"
We know that our brains produce feelings, can store memories, recognize patterns,process biological signals(homeostasis) etc. Injuries and pathology in specific areas of the brain can render some of the above unavailable to the mental state to our conscious awareness.
So consciousness (conscious awareness of experiences) is nothing more than the physical ability of the brain to connect ALL those different areas of the brain in an active state where our symbolic language is able to introduce meaning and create an amazing narrative of that specific moment which includes our self and our environment.
There are many mechanisms like the Central Lateral thalamus that enable those states but the complexity of the brain guarantees years of investigation to understand the full picture.

That’s because consciousness is a property of organisms, which are a great deal more than brains and nervous systems. Sapiens, for example, have digestive, endocrine, skeletal, respiratory and other systems. Each of these are required for human consciousness.

Neuroscience has a great deal to say about consciousness, but it is not the full story. — NOS4A2

Well neuroscience can only describe the brain mechanisms responsible for creating the subjective experience of being aware of our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, actions, memories (psychological contents) including the intimate experience of a unified self with the capacity to generate and control actions and psychological contents.
If the statement " Neuroscience has a great deal to say about consciousness" you mean the above property of mind then yes, it has the great and its the only systematic and methodical way we have to investigate this phenomenon.
Sure the full story also includes how all those thoughts, feelings, actions memories etc are made available to the mechanism of consciousness. This is why Cognitive Science is our interdisciplinary approach to those questions.

I think there are historical reasons that lead us to conclude that consciousness is a property of matter. But it also depends on what you think matter (or more broadly "the physical) encompasses. — Manuel

Historical reasons are behind ideas pointing to "magical sources" of consciousness.
35 years of Scientific reasons point to our biology and a specific organ.

I agree. We do not know if experience is limited to brains. It could be the case that panpsychism is true, or a variant of the idea that some kind of proto-life is found in all the universe. — Manuel

Definition: "Consciousness as used here, refers to the private, subjective experience of being aware of our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, actions, memories (psychological contents) including the intimate experience of a unified self with the capacity to generate and control actions and psychological contents. "*
So with the above definition in mind our understanding is that the conscious awareness of experiences is something we see in biological organisms with brains. We(as biological organisms with brains) can and are conscious of our thoughts, feelings, memories and we have the capacity to control actions etc.

The Null Hypothesis "forces" us to reject any claim pointing to ideas like panpsychism and proto-life until objective evidence is able to falsify our initial rejection. This is why science doesn't accept such claims until relative indications become available.

It could be. But it could be wrong. We don't know enough to be sure about this. — Manuel

-Actually we do know enough about the phenomenon to be pretty sure (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the conscious awareness of experience is limited to biological brains.
Its an expensive trait serving a cause that is valuable for biological organisms. Its a higher level feature with observable downward causation over the lower level parts of the system responsible for its emergence.
Not only we don't observe those characteristics in brainless non biological systems, but they are also useless and expensive to systems without any "interest" in survival.


*Giving Up on Consciousness as the Ghost in the Machine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8121175/

An accurate simulation of the organ and its function should also simulate its by product.

not reading is what got you here in the first place Bert.

I can not agree more. This is why I provide definitions with my terms. Micheal is struggling to push a false dichotomy (physical non physical) as if all properties of matter are the same and those who differ have a special ontology. This is why I used Natural as the umbrella term and "physical'/ "mental" properties with a shared ontology but with different qualities.(nothing special or new)

If there's a distinction between mental and physical properties then you accept that a) the mental is non-physical and that b) mental things exist. — Michael

No and no. There isn't any ontological distinction. Its like attributing a different ontology for the property of color and the property of hardness displayed by a rock.
Mental is just a label we place on properties produced by specific physical processes in the brain.

First, you will need to make some acknowledgements to the points made before answering your question. I don't want to address the same claims again and again.

What's the difference between "natural" and "physical"? — Michael

They are the same. The word "Natural" can be used as an umbrella term when we want to make a distinction between mental and physical properties of matter.
But again they are the same. i.e. a physical injury (or pathology) in a specific physical area of the brain affects the mental property of memory.

So are you arguing for property dualism? — Michael

No,its an observer relative term. We classify them base on their differences. Its not an ontological questions. Both emerge from physical structures.

There are lots of scientific papers on brain activity and behavioural responses. These are not prima facie evidence that they address first-person experience. — Michael

There are many papers that explains how personal experiences arise from brain function, how pathology, physical injury and intoxication/physical condition can affect their quality and how we are able to diagnose and repair problematic states of consciousness.

Much of the science on first-person experience depends on taking for granted what people self-report, — Michael

That's one out of many tools available to us.

But, of course, someone saying "I am in pain" is not the same thing as the first-person experience of pain, and so that there is scientific evidence of the former isn't that there is scientific evidence of the latter. — Michael

Of course there is evidence, through establishing strong correlations between the claim and the phenomenon in question, by analyzing brain scans, blood profile (elevated hormones), behavior and interview. Sure we can not experience their experience of pain in real time but this is not an issue. Forensic methods are present in all disciplines of science.
Its like saying there aren't any evidence for cosmology, evolution because we don't observe a phenomenon in real time. Lets be serious.

If the phenomenon is mental, and if the mental is non-physical, then the phenomenon is non-physical. — Michael

Well it depends form the meaning of the word. This is why I always use the term "natural".

That it has a physical cause isn't that it, itself, is physical. — Michael

IT is physical since the mechanisms are physical, the emergent property is Natural (mental property).

I don't know what you mean by science experiencing something. — Michael

This is what you demand from scientists and any third person to do....to experience your experience.

Either my first-person experience is susceptible to scientific analysis or it isn't. So which is it? — Michael

Of course it is, just look at the huge bibliography on the phenomenon...Scientific books and papers can not be written without analyzing the actual phenomenon.

In science and in Natural Philosophy, supernatural realms are not used as excuses for our failures to figure things out. — Nickolasgaspar

Historically speaking there is a pattern with philosophers and early scientists where when they reached the limits of their contemporary knowledge, they "blamed" the supernatural for keeping secrets from them. (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, the early fathers of QM.etc).

1) all physical phenomena is susceptible to scientific analysis
2) we have first-person experience
3) some aspect of first-person experience is not susceptible to scientific analysis
4) therefore, some aspect of first-person experience is not a physical phenomenon — Michael

Well the argument is unsound. You have a huge error in your third premise.
First of all we not only analyze first person experience, we are also affecting it with technical applications.
The other problem with your claim is that a personal experience....is a personal experience! So accusing science for not being able to experience "your experience" is like accusing a tuna sandwich for being slow in a 100m race.
Our analysis verifies the physical nature of the phenomenon independent of its subjective quality.
No 4 is also false. The phenomenon is mental but it is physically induced. So its natural and can be investigated by the methods of science.

That is not the point, you are avoiding to consider the evidence in favor of its physical nature by using a bad excuse (science can not experience our personal experience) and a red herring (if statement).
In essence you skip the hard part of philosophy (evaluation of available epistemology) and you diplomatically introduce your worldview while trying to avoid the burden of your claim.

Because the purpose of this discussion is to assess the evidence either for or against the neuroscientist's claim that consciousness can be exhaustively explained by brain activity, — Michael

First of all this is not the claim made by neuroscientist's. This is the goal of Neuroscience based on the the limits and nature of our methodologies . Its a Pragmatic Necessity , not a personal preference.
Secondly nothing in your "if" statement takes our current scientific evidence in to consideration!
It introduces unfalsifiable realms as options in our syllogisms.

It is perfectly correct not to beg the question and assume either materialism or dualism from the start. — Michael

ITs more reasonable to reject all metaphysical worldviews and proceed with what we can actually investigate and verify.
In science and in Natural Philosophy, supernatural realms are not used as excuses for our failures to figure things out.

No it doesn't.

If God is real then...
If parallel worlds are real then...
If magic is real then...

I'm not assuming anything about what's possible. — Michael

-So you are recycling hot air?? You are defining conditions in scenarios without knowing the real properties of the interacting concepts!
This is the problem with this type of "Philosophy". Brain power and time wasted for tautologies and made up dichotomies. Its an empty logical equation parading as philosophy.

I don't know if it's possible. I also don't know if it's impossible. Unlike you I'm not going to beg the question and assume that materialism is the case – that everything, including consciousness, is physical. — Michael

-So why are you doing this? There are far more meaningful scenarios to apply your '' ifs''on. Why insisting in its "philosophical value" when your statements demand way to many ifs to be proven true first before your statement finally acquires its philosophical validity..?

Micheal focus! You say "if consciousness is non physical....". That statement can only be meaningful if non physical is considered to be an available option for the ontology of consciousness. Obviously you are suggesting an option without even knowing if it is possible.
ITs the Alchemists and chemical transmutation all over again.

If you are not suggesting this specific options then you are just offering useless tautologies like the following. We don't need Philosophy to arrive to tautologies.

If consciousness is non-physical then there is no evidence that consciousness is physical. — Michael

No I don't. — Michael

This isn't difficult Michael..You are suggesting an ontology. This ontology needs to be assumed by definition. The same is true of its qualities.
You can not escape from those underlying assumptions!

of course you have.
You state: " if an aspect of consciousness is non physical"
A.You assume that non physical things exist and b. that consciousness can be a non physical due to a category error.
you state:"science can not detect conscious experience because its non physical".
So you have to assume that non physical things can interact with physical structures (brains) and those interactions don't leave traces.(which is in direct conflict with Nobelist Frank Wilczek's Core theory).

The issue here is not how many times I will need to repeat these facts but how many times you are going to refuse correcting it ( that is also an indication of pseudo philosophy).

Again too many ifs and assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar


One if, no assumptions. — Michael

Again too many ifs and assumptions. There is not any reason to assume that conscious states are non physical, we don't know if non physical things are possible, we don't know if non physical things can interact with physical structures and we don't know if they can do it without leaving any traces.
To many to have any philosophical value.

Again too many ifs and assumptions. There is not any reason to assume that conscious states are non physical, we don't know if non physical things are possible, we don't know if non physical things can interact with physical structures and we don't know if they can do it without leaving any traces.
To many to have any philosophical value.

Again to many assumptions, you need to assume that the phenomenon is non physical, that non physical phenomena CAN exist, and its interaction with the physical world shouldn't leave any traces....way to many.

It has philosophical value if it's true. — Michael

It will have epistemic value if its proven to be true , but currently its a product of pseudo philosophy. (the statement ignores all our epistemology, Basic logic(unparsimonious,unfalsifiable, Argument from ignorance fallacy, poisoning the well) and has the role of a Trojan horse for supernaturalism.

No, you are dealing with way to many ifs to make it even meaningful!
You need to make up an undetectable realm with a specific entity conveniently having the properties of the phenomenon we are trying to explain.
That entity needs....somehow to interact with our brain (since you accept brain activity as necessary) produce the phenomenon and somehow remain undetectable.(Magic)
Your ifs also have to ignore our current epistemology and to poison the well by constructing a mystical image of our personal experiences.
Lets say we see the same thing, we experience the same thing, but since my biology and previous experiences produce a personal take on it ...that's non physical?
That's not Philosophy.

I'm just pointing out the problem with Isaac's question — Michael

if you are making the same statement used by supernaturalists then your argument is over and Isaac's question is correct.
The goal of philosophy is not to find "safe spaces" for ideas with a huge baggage.
I can understand you intention to entertain metaphysical ifs but to use an unfalsifiable claim (that also lacks any epistemic or philosophical value), as ''tool'' capable to finds problems in Isaac's question, that is alarming!
IT shows that you down really respect the basic rules of logic (Parsimony, Demarcation,Burden, Null Hypothesis, logical fallacies).
Your "if" hiding in a safe space while wearing a falsifiability proof vest is already in trouble with zero philosophical value.

It doesn't then follow that it doesn't exist.
If it does exist then any explanation of consciousness that does not include this thing doesn't (exhaustively) explain consciousness at all. — Michael

-Ok, it took me some time but I think get what your goal is.
You are not looking for statements that will allow you to understand the phenomenon. What you are doing is entertaining 'ifs' and you justify their "possibility" by pointing to things we currently don't know or lacking the means to observer directly?
Am I right?

I'm not assuming anything. My argument is only that if there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness then there cannot be any physical evidence that this non-physical aspect doesn't exist. — Michael

Sure, but I don't see the Philosophical usefulness in that statement, meaning that you introduce an additional bigger mystery(non physical-whatever that is) in an attempt provide an answer to a "begging the question fallacy" (if there is a non physical aspect).
What makes you talk about that if? And what indications you have for non physical aspects existing in our cosmos.

I'm not arguing that something else involved. I'm only argued that if something else is involved then we can't have scientific evidence of it. — Michael

-Only if that "something else" is ''designed" to leave no traces for our scientific methods to find. In that case that untraceable "something else" is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist! So why even talking about it?

what is the need, to avoid admitting "we don't know"?

I'm not saying that brain activity isn't responsible for it. I'm only saying that if there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness then there can be no physical evidence of this non-physical aspect. — Michael

Sure, but "ifs" need to be demonstrated not assumed.

From your statement I see that you accept the Necessity of brain activity but not the Sufficiency to describe the phenomenon.
Do you have facts that support your claim?

The moment to argue for an if claim is only after our current descriptions are proven Unnecessary and Insufficient while having observations pointing to mechanisms that can be also be evaluated for their necessity and sufficiency.

What we currently can say is that we don't know everything so we need to exhaust our available resources. Lets keep the blame on us for now before opening the gates to additional dimensions and ontologies that we are unable not investigate, test or verify!
We did the same mistake in the past allowing gods, substances and agents in general to pollute our epistemology. Only after imposing Methodological Naturalism, we were able to experience a run away success in knowledge and in real life applications....because we can not make predictions by assuming the act of an invisible agent.


Methodological Naturalism doesn't claim that non natural causes do not exist. What it does is to exclude them from being used in our explanations because we don't have ways (methods) to verify or falsify , to quantify and or make predictions. They don't offer any answers since they are nothing more than saying "magic did it". The Statement "we don't know" with "something non natural is the cause" are identical epistemically wise.

And so that specific aspect of it isn't identical with brain activity, which is accessible in real time. — Michael

First of all I don't know what you mean by the term "identical". Brain activity enables conscious experience and previous experiences with different biological setup enable the subjective quality of them.
Arguments from ignorance isn't the best way to understand something. We only know that the we can not share our mental experience on real time. That doesn't imply that brain activity is not responsible for it when we have already demonstrated its Necessary and Sufficient role

I totally with that label.... but I try to avoid hurting people feelings by putting labels on their beliefs...because I can understand how the subjective experience of "hurting" feels, even if I can not observe their specific conscious state in real time with them = )!

We don't really need to watch the conscious content of an individual in real time in order to understand the content of a conscious state.
We can show pictures of people to a subject and easily find out whether he hates, loves, respects or he is in a romantic relationship by just watching his brain patterns.
We can analyze his blood profile and learn whether he is a risk taker, bulimic or in love.
We can observe his physical reactions and understand his physiological state under a stress stimulous.

If A is inaccessible and B is accessible then A isn't B. It's very straightforward logic. — Michael

It's very straightforward logic...and its susceptible to the GIGO effect. When we feed garbage dataa we receive garbage results.
Please do not go to abstract language where the specifics information of the subject are lost in vague generalizations. They are not helpful and its a plague for Philosophy!
We are talking about specific processes and phenomena with specific characteristics.

If subjective experience is inaccessible and brain activity is accessible then subjective experience isn't brain activity. — Michael

i.e. A(consciousness) is not an entity and it isn't inaccessible.Only a specific aspect of it isn't accessible in real time. We have the tools to investigate the impact of an experience, compare it to other people's experience and understand it the causal relations to the responsible mechanisms.

I have already analyzed the issues in that huge leap. Science use forensic reasoning and methods. Not having direct access to the end product of a process doesn't mean that we can not objectively study the phenomenon and verify its causal mechanisms.
Aspirin and dosage recommendations exist because we have ways to understand and study the subjective aspect of a conscious state.

It seems like (maybe I am wrong) that Philosophy is using the same practices with those used by religion and spiritual ideologies in an attempt protect their claims from science.

It depends what "consciousness" means to you. Through those studies we verify that conscious states responsible for our experiences are enabled by specific areas and functions of a biological brain.By affecting them we affect their quality or we can even terminate them. Consciousness in science is our mental ability to reflect on environmental or organic stimuli in relation to the "self" and introduce meaningful content through the aid of different mental properties (Memory/previous experiences, Symbolic language,reasoning, pattern recognition etc).

In science labels are NOT existential claims. We address processes.,we don't assume invisible entities(as long as there aren't any evidence for them) . We learned a lot since the era of Phlogiston, Miasma, Orgone Energy etc.
I will take a guess and say that for you consciousness is like an invisible reel/film, an entity that's is only compatible with the observer's apparatus. This is why science's inability to direct observe this movie is a deal breaker for you....Am I right? I am not trying to straw-man you, only to understand your claim.

Again " prima facie evidence of consciousness. " is not something that science has to provide, because an observable process is the evidence. A subjective aspect of it isn't enough to justify a witch hunt.

How so? If the subjective aspect of consciousness is inaccessible to science and brain activity is accessible to science then ipso facto the subjective aspect of consciousness isn't brain activity. — Michael

First of all ,we have access in the evaluation of the subjective aspect of an experience. We have metrics for profiling blood, brain scans, behavior analysis, interviewing.
We can change the stimuli, or the biological setup and observe changes in behavior, in brain patterns in blood metrics. We can create the experience by stimulating the suspected brain area and observe changes in our blood profile, behavior , brain patterns etc.
We construct Strong Correlations between the phenomenon and the necessary/sufficient mechanism. Warning! Strong Correlations in Science have nothing to do with the correlation-causation heuristics. Its a systematic construction of a case through methodologies on high standards.
Strong Correlations is the threshold used by Science.