So you don't like the analogy. Fine.
What has that got to do with the specific "fact" about cognition/physiology ?
1. Physiology appears to be necessary for cognition but cannot account for it.
You state this as if it is a fact. I submit that if facts have half lives then your statement is no longer true.
I'm afraid not. That fact as stated has not yet decayed.
Physiology appears to be necessary for cognition but cannot account for it.
Now let me explain what I mean with "causation" since the idea is at odds with the first cause having no cause n thus resulting that nothing has a cause on close scrutiny.
There is the simple-minded vision of cause the common one A leads to B that leads to C, n then there is the vision of causation has the logical proportion between things throughout spacetime. In this light everything coexists in an ensemble and there is no actual cause but rather a logos, an order, a proportionality, in events that is elegant so it is indistinguishable from causation. Regularities are bound to the Unity of all reality and to the very fabric of spacetime. From our inner to time n space point of view we call this elegance of relations and regularities cause n effect.
But "causation" is only form in four dimensions...
Here is one article you might find useful.
There is no consensus about the status of the explanatory gap. Reductionists deny that the gap exists. They argue that the hard problem reduces to a combination of easy problems or derives from misconceptions about the nature of consciousness. For example, Daniel Dennett (2005) argues that, on reflection, consciousness is functionally definable. On his view, once the easy problems are solved, there will be nothing about consciousness and the physical left to explain.
Neurosciences in general are in their infancy and have little to bring to the mind-body debate at this stage. The issue remains a next-to-total mystery, just as the emergence of life is. So we have these two massively important events (at least from our view point) -- emergence of life + emergence of conscience -- that remain unexplained by science, thus giving religiously-inclined people plenty of reasons to believe in god(s). This is why, even though I am an agnostic, I don't think it useful to disregard religious belief as irrelevant or proven false or anything like that. Only when we'll understand the emergence of life and consciousnesses in a materialist or reductionist or any other way, will we be able to discard the hypothesis of gods.
The final first cause, cannot cause itself.