The hard problem of consciousness is an impassable obstacle given the set of tools that we have and, arguably, ever can have. If we grant that there is some level of physical description (chemical, atomic, sub-atomic, whichever) at which consciousness best adheres, what do we use to make the connection? Symbolic equations and theorems don't cut it, and that's pretty much all we've got. Physical systems are fully described by the collection of their measurable properties (positions, momenta, charges, etc)--there's no way to connect things going on "outside" with subjective experience.

What would an operator which turns a physical state into conscious experience spit out?

C|state> = ????

Can't write down e.g. "The perception of a red apple on a table". Red? Table? Just symbols. Consciousness and word-symbols are just too far apart.

> The hard problem of consciousness is an impassable obstacle given the set of tools that we have and, arguably, ever can have

I've come to the same conclusion, after reading and thinking about it for 20 years. I no longer search for answers in books, papers, or threads. It's worse than not being able to find any new insights. I never found any insight that goes beyond describing the problem, or defending the existence of the problem. I no longer expect to see any progress on it in my lifetime.

It is more complex than just a one word description but that’s an argument from absurdity.

Let’s suppose we build a teleport device which can make identical copies. As in your standing in pad X then someone else is standing on pad Y that looks identical to pad X and you both respond identically.

Now, whatever that machine reads as your mind state is your actual mind state. We don’t need to make an actual copy to do exactly what you said was impossible.

To clarify, you can’t really capture an image with words but a camera can capture an image as symbols. It’s just that a person looking at those symbols can’t see the image. The same is presumably true of a mind.