There will come a time when our knowledge of the brain, achieved through neuroscience will be able to tell us a lot more about our nature as sentient apes and in particular will be able to tell us a lot more about 'free will', traditionally a conversation relegated to philosophy. When this time comes, there will have to be a merging of both philosophy and science, at least in this particular case, such that one can no longer apply neat categories to the disciplines. Example: every time a person here makes a statement within the scientific context on the nature of man, you jump at him and say, you have now entered the domain of philosophy and any statement you are making, as long as it is informed by science, is not science. The day when such categorisation is no longer possible (as you enjoy doing) is not far off. I await a response.
Any sort of epiphenomenal explanation of consciousness nonetheless affirms the existence of mind. Imo, the reflective nature of consciousness implies the will to reflect as one's volition dictates. Therefore, either mind is not purely a function of brain or the brain does not harbor consciousness.
To acknowledge consciousness, it seems to me, is necessarily to acknowledge intention (if of nothing else than the continued will to be aware) which is born from thought (thinking thought thinking thought...) rather than from a mechanical inevitability of brain meat. So I see the brain, while being the physical contingent of consciousness, and suffering from the usual liabilities of any physical object, as the servant of thought rather than its master.
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
