Well, this Chalmers guy at least seems to be someone who "gets it". So many who are commited to objectivity are dismissive of the problem of the subjective. Probably because it's so excruciating.
My thought has been that we have a lot further to go on the "easy" problem of objective correlates of subjective expericence. Consider color. Schroedinger mentioned that "yellow" would be the stimulation of a certain set of nerves. But what could distinguish these nerves from the "blue" nerves? If there were "yellow" and "blue" nerves, otherwise physically identical, this would vindicate dualism. From my "readings on color" I see the indication that color perception involves qualitatively different neural patterns. But even then, why should various abstract patterns be associated with the variable subjective perceptions?
The question is excruciating.
A lively discussion in my office (and its a clerical office, not scientific:) was about the effects of vitamin B-12 on "dreaming in color instead of black-and-white". I maintained that it was impossible to prove that you dreamt in color with any sort of empirical or observational evidence. The 'color dreamer' could only testify that they'd dreamt in color, but it could not be proven scientifically.
Subsequently, I tried experimenting with my own dreams using lucid conciousness techniques, and found that during a lucid dream when I thought about the question, then sure enough the dream became 'in full technicolor'! Otherwise it was just a jumble of seemingly random thought patterns. But I couldn't PROVE any of it !!!
Your mileage may vary ........ :)
The question is excruciating
Excruciating indeed !! {grin}