Isn’t this a god-of-the-gaps argument? Neuroscience is young. “We can’t yet explain consciousness” isn’t “consciousness can’t be explained physically.”

The hard problem is not a gap in the ordinary sense. It is the claim that no amount of structural and functional explanation could in principle yield experience, because experience is not a structure or a function. Chalmers’s argument is conceptual, not an appeal to current ignorance. That argument may be wrong (Dennett and the illusionists say it is), but if it is right, more neuroscience will not close the gap. The distinction between a gap in knowledge and a gap in kind is the whole question.