Stuh asks: "Don't the answers to questions 1-6 prove without a shadow of a doubt that consciousness is a product of brain function?"
No doubt, but is it not also clear that all the components of your statements are mental phenomena? Can't you see that this coin as two sides?
Perhaps nudists have seen it all before
As far as "consciousness" goes we need to address the following questions.
1. Is there a difference between "consciousness" and "self-consciousness" ?
2. Is brain activity "necessary" or "sufficient" (or both) for "consciousness"
or is the latter an aspect of general existence
like a "field phenomenon" which the brain taps into ?
3. Is "self awareness" a solipsistic phenomenon or is it an aspect of "social reality" established via language.
Questions 1 and 2 are to some extent covered by JLN's esoteric analysis.
Just to take on question 3 for the moment. it seems to me that what is going on within discussions of "near-death experiences" is a social transaction regarding the status of "self" under extreme biological stress.
Given that such status is undergoes bizarre metamorphosis in what we call "dreams" or "personality disorders" why should we attach particular significance to any metamorphosis ? Oxygen starvation has been cited to account for apparent similarities of "experience"
so to pursue the matter further is perhaps merely to indulge in the same socially beneficial metaphysical speculation which supports "religion".
And to return to OmSigDAVID then, the philosophical point here is that one thing that "man sees" when he "uncovers himself" is an actual lack of coherence as "an individual" even in his so called waking state ! His multifarious "selves" slip in and out like actors on a social stage.
What then is the status of the ghost in Hamlet .....
merely another role in the play ?