"Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?"What do you mean by a "rich inner life"? And why shouldn't it?
"How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"Snails get to be subjects of experience by crawling near humans.
I think they meant to say something else. But it's not very clear what.
"Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"This assumes there is "awareness of sensory information". That is a bad place to start for the problem of consciousness!
It doesn't make any sense to assume X exists and then get stuck on saying X is. If you can't say what X is, then you should reconsider whether it exists in the way you think it does.
This shouldn't be a *why* question. A *what* question would be better. But it shouldn't be "What is [some string of letters]?" It should give some specific facts or evidence or something and present some problem with them. Which this doesn't.
"Why do qualia exist?"Assumes qualia exist and that we know what they are. Bad starting point.
"Why is there a subjective component to experience?"Assumes there is a subjective component. Doesn't say what that is.
"Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"Why aren't we rocks? Or snails?
Better question: how do we learn? How can we do philosophy?
"Phenomenal Natures are categorically different from behavior"That's not a question, it's a very vague assertion.
I'm not saying there is no such thing as a legitimate problem that could be called "the problem of consciousness". But the people pursuing *these* questions A) don't know what the problem is and B) aren't doing anything to solve it.