I think that if science in it's present form could explain consciousness, consciousness would already be explained. Curently the best neurologists have been able to do (so far as I can see) is explain it away as some sort of illusion. These arguments seem pretty flimsy to me.

I seek the answer after every toke!

Consciousness is a mystery. We are all made of energy. When our bodies die, the energy that we created does not go away. Energy can take on different forms and go to other locations, but does not go away. Right now there are many things science can't explain.

There must be an element of energy involved. When someone dies, their consciousness slowly dies too.

The brain contains an information system which generates data that makes assertions about such things as feelings. Science can in principle trace back the entire mechanism by which such data is generated to see what evidence it is based on, at which point it should be able to determine either that the assertions are false or it will uncover the causal mechanism by which actual feelings drive the generation of the data that documents them.

Yes.

No. It's possible that Chalmers is correct, of course, and we won't know he's wrong until we prove him wrong. However ...

It's my view that consciousness correlates, not with physical brain processes precisely, but with emergent properties of those processes and the influence of the neurochemical environment they run on.

Some seemingly mysterious aspects of consciousness don't seem so mysterious once someone figures out an explanatory framework for them. For example, the holy grail of general-purpose or strong artificial intelligence (AI) has been considered by many in the field to be inherently un-doable until Judea Pearl's recent work on "causal calculus" as described in his very approachable book, The Book of Why. He managed to reduce causal relationships (more sophisticated than statistical correlations) to a pretty simple system that anyone with high school algebra and some general understanding of Boolean algebra can work with. Basically just a special case of Boolean networks (itself Pearl's massive contribution to the field of AI as we now now it). If that system proves out (and I believe that it will), strong AI is still the devil in the details, but now we have a conceptual framework to make it happen.

Are emotions reducible to material processes ? Everything is reducible to material processes, can humans do it with current technology, I don't know.

No. Without consciousness there is no material world!

Most likely

Yes, consciousness is reducible to material processes in the brain. The only thing “hard” about the problem is that our language and thought patterns are so point-of-view driven, and we don’t have good conceptual frameworks that are POV neutral. Buddhist language comes closer: a pain occurred, a taste of butter entered, blue spots emerged, etc. Our language is obsessed with the self.