There's certainly nothing original about the observation that conscious experience poses a hard problem.

What does it mean, exactly, for a given system to be a "neural correlate of consciousness"?

Within psychology and neuroscience, some new and rigorous experimental paradigms for studying consciousness have helped it begin to overcome the stigma that has been attached to the topic for most of this century.

I had the idea that it would be wonderful to be a physicist or a mathematician maybe 500 years ago around the time of Newton when there were really fundamental things just lying around to be discovered.

How does the water of the brain turn into the wine of consciousness?

There's certainly nothing original about the observation that conscious experience poses a hard problem.

Things are still in early stages, but one can imagine that as we build up and systematize our theories of these associations, and try to boil them down to their core, the result might point us toward the sort of fundamental principles I advocate.