The problem with this sort of view is that while it may be true that there is direct and privileged access to one's own conscious states, it does not follow that this access is incorrigible. Furthermore, even if we do have privileged and incorrigible access, the latter being stronger than the former, to the subjective aspects of consciousness, it does not follow that we have either sort of access to all the aspects of consciousness. If, as most naturalists think, consciousness has depth and hidden structure, then first-person phenomenology will hardly be capable of yielding a complete theory of consciousness. Naturalism implies that conscious mental states supervene on certain neural states. What neural state my experience of red supervenes on is something to which there is no first-personal access.
Some philosophers are pessimistic about joining the subjective and objective sides of the story.
Others are hopeful that we can yoke together the phenomenological, psychological, and neural analyses of conscious mental life to yield a more complete theory, a theory that gives the way things seem its due and which at the same time deepens our understanding of how conscious mental events are realized and what causal roles they play. The question of causal role is pressing. There is at present no widely accepted theory of why consciousness evolved. It seems to many that a merely informationally sensitive system, such as a community of ants and bees, may be, or could be, as well adapted as equivalent experientially sensitive systems. There is no doubt that we are conscious, but because the adaptive value of being conscious is not well understood, epiphenomenalism, the view that consciousness is a side-effect of more causally significant processes, remains a live, and much discussed, possibility in contemporary philosophy of mind and cognitive science.