Mind / Brain

[Angrboda]

I'll let Chad address the bulk of this, if he so chooses.

I'll simply point out that since the physicalist explanation of consciousness has yet to be demonstrated, and non-physicalist models can (in theory) be made to comport equally as well with the evidence, it's therefore inappropriate to assert that the non-physicalist bears the burden of proof disproportionately. I'm not current on the science, but my impression is that physicalism still lacks a model which would account for the various properties and aspects of consciousness, so attempting to thrust the question all on the non-physicalist side is inappropriate. (One simply has to note that your question implies that the brain is responsible for consciousness, such that consciousness in the absence of a brain would be an inexplicable fact. This seems to be begging the question.)

Anyway, I know it's fashionable to assert things like the mind and the brain are one, but simply speaking, we have a ways yet to go before we have anything like satisfactory answers to these questions (specifically regarding consciousness). In the words of a fellow philosopher, the field of neuroscience is "awash in data," but has no unifying explanations. This was much the opinion I had upon reading the first half of Antonio Damasio's Self Comes To Mind; Damasio, for all his knowledge of the subject, was still searching for a model which explains the data. And in the absence of a model of how the brain results in the phenomenon of consciousness, it's premature to claim we know the brain is responsible. That's as bad as the sellers of magnetic bracelets claiming they improve your health without having an actual mechanism to explain how they work.

I notice you ask additional questions about the benefits of non-physical mind. Aside from being an argument from consequences, I suppose the same utility as any fact of reality potentially has.