This is a genuinely open question, and I think honesty about the current state of things is more useful than false certainty in either direction.

**What science can and does explain:**
- Neural correlates of conscious experiences
- How brain damage affects awareness
- Sleep, anesthesia, and altered states
- Information processing that accompanies experience
- Evolutionary pressures that likely shaped consciousness

**Where genuine difficulty remains:**
- The "hard problem" - why physical processes are accompanied by subjective experience at all
- We can correlate brain states with experiences but struggle to explain *why* there's something it's like to see red
- We don't have an agreed-upon test for whether something is conscious

**Reasonable positions people hold:**
- **Optimistic naturalists** think it's just a very hard scientific problem that will eventually yield, like other mysteries that once seemed impossible
- **Those who see a deeper puzzle** argue subjective experience may resist third-person scientific methods in principle, not just in practice
- **Some philosophers** think the "hard problem" is actually confused and will dissolve with better concepts rather than being "solved"

**My honest assessment:**
Science has made enormous progress on consciousness, and some of the mystery may stem from current ignorance. But it's not clearly settled that standard scientific methods can fully capture subjective experience, and I think people who treat this as simply obvious in either direction are probably overconfident.

What aspect interests you most?
