Briefly from looking at the Chalmers paper:
- I agree that "how do we get macro experiences from micro entities" is an unsolved problem.
- I agree that, if physicalism is strictly true, then looking for macro entities in physics (wave function or something) is a promising candidate for getting macro experiences.
- However I think assuming physicalism is strictly true is somewhat dogmatic, *especially* if we are accepting macro experiences as real and something to explain. This is because physics has a "tunnel vision" of seeking to describe shared, discrete observations with universal laws, generally tending towards the microscopic.
- A somewhat less dogmatic setup: assume there is a reality r : R, physics p : P, mind m : M. Mappings f : R -> P, g : R -> M, showing physics and mind supervene on reality. Natural supervenience (there *mathematically exists* some h : P -> M commuting, h * f = g). Now we accept that reality may contain more than physics, e.g. reality may contain high-level entities. HashLife is an inspirational analogy: the physics of HashLife is the low-level of Conway's Game of Life, yet there is more to the reality of the HashLife program than this procession of states. Now the primary phenomenal binding problem appears in the mapping g : R -> M. We need to maintain consistency with physics, yet we aren't assuming "physics is all there is". This still doesn't say how specifically reality gives rise to high-level entities; it is rather presenting a skeptical alternative to "physicalism is strictly true, so macro-mind is emergent from physics, so macro-mind depends on macro entities in physics".