Sure, there are things about consciousness that have not been explained and some things have been explained. Scientists are working on explaining all of it and that will take time. How is this different than any other process of science? I noticed you had this question up for a while but you have not explained anything showing that there is a problem.
Sure, scientists have been very successful at explaining and inventing things, but if you go on a case-by-case basis, then it's easier to see that this success has not translated into answering the points I raised in post #1. When it comes to the study of consciousness, scientists have gone from studying it, to banning or excluding it from inquiry, and only recently took it back up again. It's nature is still just as mysterious as when Descartes first wrote about it in the 17th century. All of this is to be expected when a phenomenon, such as consciousness, is drastically different than the "physical" stuff that scientists normally deal with.
There is a good outspoken neurologist named Steven Novella. I recommend taking a look at his website. You can start with this article
What Is Consciousness? Another Reply to Kastrup | NeuroLogica Blog (theness.com)
excerpt:
"This does not mean, of course, that I can explain exactly how the brain generates the subjective experience of consciousness. It is important to separate the question of
how the brain causes consciousness from
if the brain causes consciousness."
In other words, the "if" is not in question for scientists but rather it is the "how".
I'm familiar with Dr. Steven Novella. He states that he can not explain consciousness, but then goes on to say that it's a product of the brain. I think it's reasonable to be more agnostic than that. I'm not disputing that there is a connection between brain and consciousness, but being connected does not mean that the two are identical, or that consciousness can't be something over and above (or an emergent property) the brain. Hek, the brain may be a medium, and I think the evidence allows for that if you consider that a lot of human functions can be carried out without consciousness. We can eat, cook, and drive all in while sleepwalking. We can even design robots to do that. All of this leads me to question if the brain even needs consciousness, and if not, what other mediums can consciousness exist with.
So it's reasonable to be more agnostic than Dr. Novella when it comes to the nature of the connection between brain and consciousness, and even on the ontology of the two.