I’m not going to provide dozens of links. Instead I will drop some names and categories of study where it matters.

Whatever field of study takes your interest is the best place to start expanding uour interest from. The prominent area would be “philosophy of mind,” “cognitive neuroscience,” “psychology,” “linguistics,” and “computing - artificial intelligence” (not to mention “philosophy of science” and “logic”).

A lot of people involved in these areas are cross-disciplined. For the hard data there is no better place to start than “cognitive neuroscience”. Actually, I’d say start here first!

“Cognitive Neurosciences,” by Gazzaniga, would be a good place to begin.

In the more philosophically inclined I’d obviously go for Descartes, Hume and Locke. In modern academia I’d be more inclined to go for an admixture of psychology, linguistics and cogntive archaeology.

Many people have some quite rigid ideas about this subject so you’re certainly in a better position if you have a decent idea about brain function and don’t get caught up in “quantum” mumbo-jumbo (an area many turn to for a easy “explanation”.

Here’s a link (looks like reasonable overview): https://social.hse.ru/data/2013/12/21/1338659679/Baars%20Gage%202010%20Cognition,%20Brain%20and%20Consciousness%20(2nd%20edition).pdf

[quote="Edward;d5427"
Due to the nature of the subject of consciousness, we affect our analysis by "looking" at our own process.

Decision making can be affected by an analysis of the decision making process.

[/quote]
As writen these two issues involve a single recursive step. Is another way of saying it is that as soon as we understand consciousness we lose our understanding because our consciousness has become one step higher, and is no longer the thing we were trying to understand?. If we repeat once morethen we are still no better off... so we can never experience understanding consciousness?

Perhaps the experience of consciouness arises from contemplating this infinte recursion, or somehow having this infinte recursion as a (possibily unconscious) possibilty in our "wiring"?

Many people have some quite rigid ideas about this subject so you’re certainly in a better position if you have a decent idea about brain function and don’t get caught up in “quantum” mumbo-jumbo (an area many turn to for a easy “explanation”. — I like sushi

Daniel Dennett would be a good writer to read in order about the nature of consciousness I would imagine. I have only read his "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and very recently, but he's got me hooked, even if not "skyhooked".

The hard problem of consciousness is an artifact of our continuing at some level to follow in the footsteps of Descartes and maintain a separation between the subjective and the objective. One result of this is our notion of consciousness as the subjective experience of an objective world. Approaches such as those(embodied enactive cognitive science) which tap into phenomenological philosophy(Merleau-Ponty) attempt to dissolve the hard problem by overcoming the subject-object split.

Dennett attempts to sidestep the problem by denying there is any such thing as subjective experience in the first place. At the opposite end are philosophers of mind like Chalmers who want to imbue all of material reality with subjectivity(panpsychism). The best approach to my mind is one that recognizes an inextricable entanglement between the subjective and objective in our accounts of empirical reality and inner consciousness.

Dennett attempts to sidestep the problem by denying there is any such thing as subjective experience in the first place. — Joshs

Wouldn't he put it more like " there is the illusion of subjective experience"? Also that this illusion can be faintly present - as in primitive creatures - or strongly so.- as in humans. The more complex the brain, the stronger is the illusion. Whereas it wouldn't make sense to say that some sort of magical subjectivity can occur in varying quantities.

It’s more simply put like this ... “free will” exists AND “free will” doesn’t exist. The difference is generally down to how you are approaching the subject matter and what you intend by the words you use.

“Consciousness” suffers the same problem. It is better to understand exactly (or as best as possible) what someone means by the terms they’re using and the context in which they are using them.

Bludgeoning each other to death on forums is a sorry habit of many trying to insist upon this or that specific and singular use of a wide scoped term applicable to many different fields of study. In my experience most people walk into a fight that doesn’t exist and swing at shadows.

Thanks guys, some content for me to look over.

I honestly think that the "hard problem" stems from a combo of (a) a poor analysis of explanations--just what they are, just what the relationship is--and isn't--between any explanation and the thing being explained, etc., and (b) the fact that in this case, and this case only, we have a "first person" perspective of the thing being explained.

(b) makes clear the fact that explanations aren't actually anything like--that is, they don't at all seem like the thing being explained, when the thing being explained is considered from a "first person" perspective. (a) results in a lack of realizing that this is all that's really going on with the hard problem.

(I put "first person" in quotation marks above because I'm not trying to suggest that there's literally a conscious perspective for other things, but things are different from reference points of being that thing than they are from other reference points.)

I would also suggest something a littler “lighter” too that covers some interesting aspects, Damasio’s “Decartes Error” (very well written pop-science book).

Yes, he would say illusion. The problem with that approach is it ignores the 'sibjective' conditions of possibility that have to be constructted in order to have any notion of what objectivity is supposed to be.

I'm tempted to say, for a cheap thrill, that objectivity is an illusion too, as illustrated by the intangible quantum world which will forever be out of our understanding. But I won't because Mr Dennett would hotly object I'm sure.

Compartmentalization (I'm not sure if there's a better concept) vs. Cognitive dissonance.

I love you but please go through the prenuptial agreement.

Compartmentalization failure sank the Titanic.

Well, let's see:

• Due to the nature of the subject of consciousness, we affect our analysis by "looking" at our own process. - A significant problem with all discussions of consciousness is the failure to define terms. It seems like when you say "consciousness" here, you mean self-awareness. Is that correct?
  
  
• Decision making can be affected by an analysis of the decision making process. - Ok.
  
  
• We are not a singular unchanging "thing", so our analysis of "free will" is hugely complicated by what exactly is on a "determined path". - I don't think free will is "hugely complicated." It's a fairly simple issue.
  
  
• The cognitive dissonance of believing in hard determinism. It's absurd to discuss a determined universe and a lack of free will. Logic and meaning of anything is absurd in this mindset. - I don't see any absurdity in thinking about determinism. It's not clear what cognitive dissonance you are talking about.
  
  
• The micro/macro layers of a conscious reality are abstract and don't exist as a physical "thing". All of our decisions revolve around abstracted forms. - You haven't defined "conscious reality." I don't know what you mean.
  
  
• We don't understand the existence of "consciousness", hence the hard problem of consciousness. Seeing as the principles of determinism, identity and free will heavily involve "consciousness" we can't "call a wrap" on any of them. - The so-called "hard problem of consciousness" generally applies to the experience of our inner lives - the pictures and words in our minds; our memories, thoughts, emotions, etc. What everything feels like. As the cliche goes, what it is like to be us. Qualia and stuff. That's not the same as self-awareness. It is my understanding that this definition of consciousness is often applied to sentient but non-self-aware animals.
  
  
• It may be impossible to understand ourselves from within ourselves - There is nowhere else for us to understand ourselves from. We'll have to do the best we can.