The explanatory gap is still there.

The author argues that O'Regan and Noë's sensorimotor theory of consciousness does not solve the hard problem of consciousness any better than other theories. Replacing neural representations with sensorimotor contingencies merely creates an illusion of closing the explanatory gap, but does not actually address why or how physical processes give rise to subjective experience.

Study at a glance

Abstract

I argue that O'Regan & Noë's (O&N's) theory is in a no better position than any other theory to solve the "hard problem" of consciousness. Getting rid of the explanatory gap by exchanging sensorimotor contingencies for neural representations is an illusion.