Yes, that's called vulgar materialism, even old Marx wrote about it. Good modern sci does make a lot of dialectical considerations as part of the scientific method. Engels knew that, wrote it. There was a lot of lib moaning by professors in my upperclassmen classes about how diamat is an incredible tool but 'muh scary politics'. Anti-Duhring was a highly suggested read, but I know my uni experience was rare (that prof was a secret comrade) and I wouldn't go recommending scientists being the sole philosophers any time soon, especially of the fields mentioned in this thread. In the far future? Oh heck yes, breakdown of divisions of labor.

Neuroscience barely looks at the most common cell in nervous tissue, the humble glia. They aren't sexy enough for funding like neurons are. There are also other neural mesh sites in the body but we focus exclusively on the most obvious organs. Hard to figure how something works when you only look at so much of it, just saying. Then comes the issues of definitions, what is consciousness to the layman is different than that of the philosopher than that of the neuroscientist than that of the anesthesiologist than that of the youtuber psychic, though there are overlaps.

Idk, the first part of the take afaik would only be hot among Derrida-derived lenses (like Zizek his most popular student) which consider it a pleuralism, imo would only have an argument in idealistic materialism straight out of Hegel's work, though they have a tendency to blanket apply what is to Hegel onto Marx 1-1.

Edit; On more thought, Lenin might have been like 'technically yes, actually <much words>' since monism/pluralism usually is featured from an idealistic philosophical view rather than material (and if it is it tends to be the metaphysical 'vulgar' sort) and also tends to be very undynamic in expressions of the world so it fails to grasp complexities of the world (which has a history and such). Yes, but not so fast.

My hot takes since that's fun, Consciousness receptor? No. Consciousness generator? Also no. Damn right consciousness especially of the pop culture type is an illusion, deal with it, and you're a different person every day, every moment, ship of Theseus my fat ass, ship of pure cope. Its just easier to call it that way because of how we process things and the limitations of language-symbolism, psych... As humans. So arrogant to think we're the only ones that are alive, perceive and process in this place. Our other cellular siblings do all those things too, also deal with it, even the so-called 'simple' ones.

Now what illusions can do vs what we know of the world, hell if I know, we can do a lot by just imagining things especially as children, or even being asleep. I know it's one part our brain (or whatever neural mesh or sensory processor thingy) is an incredible bio computer of sorts doing calcs constantly, the other parts no clue. I do know from historical dev, whatever it is has some material underpinning somewhere, perhaps one day we'll figure it out if lucky. Unfortunately, human tendency is to run into something unknown and be quick attribute mysticism to it or blame some religious figure.