On naturalism and consciousness

[Chas]

And scientists are working on it. You can believe whatever you wish, I await actual evidence.

The evidence so far indicate mind as an emergent property of brain, that complexity is intimately part of that. Simpler brains exhibit simpler minds.

When you are quoting something, it's generally good to actually respond to the ideas contained in that quote. We've already established that you can wave your hand toward a brain and claim, "Evidence says it's in there somewhere." But that's as useful as saying, "wetness is in water." That's not really much of a discovery.

Let's say you go to a pie context, and Mrs. smith's delicious pumpkin pie wins it. People start debating what it is that makes it so delicious. Your response would (by anology) be: "The great taste is in the pie."

There are many parts of the brain which do a lot of complex processing but are not part of the conscious stream, so saying the brain as a whole is conscious is like saying a car as a whole generates a lot of torque. "It's in there somewhere" is at the same time obvious, and also a demonstration of disinterest in the subject. What exactly is special about the brain that allows the supervenience of consciousness? You need to identify what systems are both sufficient and necessary, or you're just saying, "the sky-blue color comes from the sky."

And you should read what I actually wrote. I didn't say "the brain as a whole is conscious". Nor did I imply that the mind "is in there somewhere". I said that mind is an emergent property of the brain.

You seem to really like the word supervenience, yet you don't seem to understand it or don't see that it doesn't apply here.
The brain can be damaged without any effect or with a large effect on the mind. And that is at odds with the definition of supervenience.

"A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. "