Icarus, the article which you provided a link to was essentially an essay on why modern neuroscience is “misguided.” It suggests that “Instead of trying to explain consciousness in terms of matter and energy, perhaps we should be trying to explain matter and energy in terms of consciousness.” Forgive me for assuming that you were sympathetic with this point of view.
As for me “lowering the tone” of this discussion – I would prefer to call it bringing things back down to earth. Scientists are in the business of trying to explain human psychology in terms of physiological processes. This has been and will mostly likely continue to be a productive enterprise and one which I’m glad to be involved in.
A cautionary note – thought experiments and introspection are not the best way to go about determining how the mind works. Intuitions and common-sense notions about how our minds process information are frequently wrong and often extremely misleading. Let me offer an example. Vivid autobiographical memories often feel like they have a photographic quality. When we recall (think about) a significant event in our life it typically feels like we a retrieving a snapshot of what we experienced at the time. However, experimentally it can be demonstrated that this is not the case. Such memories are actually reconstructions recreated each time they are accessed, and they integrate some stored information about the event in question with more recently acquired information. Consequently autobiographical memories are rather malleable and easily distorted. This is why eyewitness testimony is often so unreliable. Also it’s worth noting that there is little relationship between how sure someone feels that a memory is accurate, and whether it actually is. Our intuitive understanding of our own memory is faulty.
Another example, people will often generate totally plausible accounts of why they behaved in a particular way in a particular situation that are complete fabrications. It often feels like we know why we behaved in a particular way but in reality we have absolutely no idea – it’s all post hoc theorising. Our intuitive understanding of how we make decisions is often wrong.
For these reasons, and many others, trying to come up with general theories of cognition and consciousness that satisfy our intuitive knowledge about our own minds is a fairly pointless exercise.