If you believe that an exhaustive explanation based on the laws of physics would still leave the mystery of consciousness unexplained then I’d urge you not to drop the word metaphysical from the description of camp #2.
Metaphysical doesn’t necessarily need to mean “spooky” or “non-naturalist”. There are plenty of coherent naturalist camp #2 formulations of phenomenal consciousness e.g. Russellian monism and property dualism. These both require additional metaphysical commitments to try to explain consciousness but they fit coherently within a naturalist viewpoint.
I’m not claiming that we need any extra laws of physics to explain consciousness. I’m saying that even if you showed me the equations that proved I would behave like a conscious being, I still wouldn’t feel like the problem was solved satisfactorily, until you explained why that would also make me feel like a conscious being.
If you believe that an exhaustive explanation based on the laws of physics would still leave the mystery of consciousness unexplained then I’d urge you not to drop the word metaphysical from the description of camp #2.
Metaphysical doesn’t necessarily need to mean “spooky” or “non-naturalist”. There are plenty of coherent naturalist camp #2 formulations of phenomenal consciousness e.g. Russellian monism and property dualism. These both require additional metaphysical commitments to try to explain consciousness but they fit coherently within a naturalist viewpoint.
I’m not claiming that we need any extra laws of physics to explain consciousness. I’m saying that even if you showed me the equations that proved I would behave like a conscious being, I still wouldn’t feel like the problem was solved satisfactorily, until you explained why that would also make me feel like a conscious being.