The following text is about cognitive neuroscience.
The "hard problem of consciousness" resists neuroscientific approaches not because brains are too complex but because of a conceptual gap. Even complete knowledge of neural correlates—which brain states accompany which experiences—wouldn't explain why there is something it is like to have those states. We could know everything about color processing without understanding why red looks the way it does. Some argue this gap shows consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical science; others believe it reflects limitations of current concepts that future breakthroughs may overcome.
Why does the text say the hard problem "resists neuroscientific approaches"?
Neuroscience lacks the technology to study brains
A conceptual gap exists that neural correlation data cannot bridge
The problem has already been completely solved
Scientists refuse to study consciousness
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. The text states the problem resists neuroscience "not because brains are too complex but because of a conceptual gap"—even complete neural knowledge wouldn't explain subjective experience.
- Evidence: Conceptual gap, not technical limitation.
- Reasoning: "Why" questions remain after "which" questions are answered.
- Conclusion: The gap is conceptual, not empirical.
Choice A is incorrect because it's not about technological limits. Choice C is incorrect because the problem "resists" solutions. Choice D is incorrect because neuroscience studies consciousness actively.