This is a genuinely difficult question worth thinking carefully about rather than just giving a reassuring answer either way.

## What science has made progress on:
- Neural correlates of consciousness (which brain states accompany which experiences)
- How damage, drugs, and stimulation affect conscious experience
- Attention, awareness, and cognitive processing mechanisms

## The genuine hard problem:
Philosopher David Chalmers identified something important - explaining *why* physical processes produce subjective experience at all. Why does information processing *feel like anything*? This isn't obviously answerable by more neuroscience alone.

## Honest assessment of competing positions:

**Optimistic physicalists** argue consciousness will eventually reduce to brain processes fully - we just need better science

**Skeptics** point out we don't even have a clear theory of what a complete explanation would look like

**Panpsychists** think consciousness might be fundamental, requiring reconceptualization rather than reduction

**Eliminativists** suggest our concept of consciousness itself is confused

## What I'd flag as worth considering:
- Science excels at third-person, measurable phenomena; consciousness is inherently first-person
- "Explaining" might mean different things - predicting vs. actually accounting for subjective experience
- The question might require philosophical work alongside scientific work

My honest assessment: science can likely explain *much* about consciousness, but whether it can explain *everything* depends on philosophical commitments that remain genuinely contested.

What specific aspect interests you most?
