Analysis of the Explanatory Gap Problem in Perception-Sensorimotor Theory and Neural workspace

Introduction: Probably, the answer to the difficult problem of consciousness is one of the most complicated problems in the philosophy of mind. At the same time, consciousness is very familiar to us, but it seems difficult to explain it. So far, many theories have come up to answer the difficult problem of consciousness. One of these theories is the sensory-motor approach claims that the rules between sensory inputs and motor outputs are able to explain the phenomenal quality. Adherents of the neural workspace approach try to explain consciousness by separating personal and sub-personal space and consider consciousness to be the result of what happens at the personal level. Sensory-motor approaches have problems in explaining their claim.  Degnar believe that the integration of sensory-motor and neural workspace solves the challenges of both well.
Methodology: The research method in this article is descriptive and the challenges in both approaches have been addressed as much as possible.
Findings: Neural workspace theories alone face the challenge of considering only the internal aspects of the brain and neural processes responsible for creating consciousness. Although they can provide explanations about the neural correlates of consciousness, they cannot explain the quality of a experience tells us something. In contrast, embodied approaches tried to solve this problem by moving away from the idea that perception is something related to our brains. They try to attribute conscious understanding to a person with a body who is in a certain position and is interacting with the world. Oregan claims mastery of the sensorimotor rules that we acquire in interaction with the environment alone to explain How to get consciousness is enough, but despite the efforts of the organization, such a view has serious challenges. Although Degennar tries to create a coherent structure of these two theories, he does not reach the desired result. Therefore, the combination of these two views may be a relatively suitable explanation to describe the extroverted and introverted aspects of awareness, but it cannot explain the quality of consciousness.
What these approaches should answer exactly is why combining these approaches and structuring them with each other creates a certain complexity, after which we get a phenomenal feeling. The combination of sensorimotor and workspace approaches, contrary to their claims, do not have the ability to respond to the absolute gap of explanation. The integration of such views may be able to provide descriptions about the comparative gap, but the question still remains, why are some of our experiences associated with consciousness?
Conclusion: According to sensorimotor approach, they have many descriptive problems in response to such a challenge. Although sensorimotor theories have relative success by combining bodily actions with the outside world and trying to distance themselves from the explanation of consciousness through brain processes, there is always this question. that all that is talked about as the discovery of meaning and consciousness, apart from the fact that it takes place in the brain or in our bodily interactions under a series of sensorimotor criteria, in what context does such views happen ?
this view by discarding concepts such as the soul or The human ego considers such concepts responsible for the mysteriousness of the intellectual space regarding the way of perception, but they do not provide much explanation about the self that is discovering external meanings.