> This is just begging the question, and it's clear that no matter how much evidence there is that there are some things that science can't explain these will just be written off by those who have 'faith' in science.
You don't have any examples of this in this post, though.
> there is absolutely nothing to suggest that consciousness is material in nature
Wrong. The existence of psychoactive drugs and the effectiveness of fMRI scans disproves this statement.
EDITED TO ADD: What evidence would make you change your mind about this statement in particular?
The question in philosophy is "how does consciousness arise from the physical?" While you can claim it's due to some complex interaction in our brains, and while we have significant evidence that this is the case, I don't think that answers the question. Philosophers want to know the mechanism which produces the experience. Arguing that consciousness (or experience) is physical is a tough thing to do from first principles because of our own intuitive sense of it.
For example, how is it that the electrical signals in our brains produce "us" while electrical signals in other things don't produce conscious things? How are they different? What would it take to make a circuit "conscious"?
I can't give you good definitions for consciousness or experience and I can't even say that the question(s) make(s) sense. I'm just trying to give you give you a picture of what some people think.
You don't have any examples of this in this post, though.
> there is absolutely nothing to suggest that consciousness is material in nature
Wrong. The existence of psychoactive drugs and the effectiveness of fMRI scans disproves this statement.
EDITED TO ADD: What evidence would make you change your mind about this statement in particular?