The third path is biological . Very little is yet known, however, about the nature of the language used by neurones and about the content of their communication. Recent speculations about physical sources of consciousness extend this path of study as deep as to the quantum level. I have listed three paths to understanding consciousness and we can clearly see that each concerns something different. What we cannot see, however, is whether these paths converge at some point or whether they run parallel and eventually diverge.
Some methodological issues can be, however, exposed beforehand.
Just recall the already outdated behaviourist ideology in psychology, or reductionism still persisting in biology. Too much energy is thus wasted on debates about who is right and who is not. I do not claim that such debates are completely fruitless, but I would more strongly support attempts to learn from others, to listen each to each other, to try to understand other people s language and to look for possible matches across disciplines. From the scientist s view the former is much harder since it does not offer objective statements. Quite aptly, problems posed along the first path were recently nicknamed hard by D. Chalmers to distinguish them from problems posed along the latter two paths, considered to be easy .