That's a huge and fascinating question that's currently at the forefront of scientific and philosophical debate! There's no consensus answer, and here's a breakdown of the different perspectives:

**Arguments for "Yes, Eventually":**

*   **Materialism/Physicalism:** This is the dominant view in science. It holds that consciousness is a product of physical processes in the brain. As our understanding of neuroscience advances, we'll be able to map the neural correlates of consciousness (NCCs) – the specific brain activity that corresponds to specific conscious experiences.  Once we fully understand how these processes work, we will have explained consciousness.
*   **Computationalism/Functionalism:** This view suggests that consciousness arises from the right kind of computation, regardless of the hardware it runs on.  If we can build a computer system that performs the same functions as a conscious brain, it will also be conscious.  This opens the door for AI achieving consciousness and provides a framework for understanding it.
*   **Progress in Neuroscience:**  Significant progress has been made in identifying brain regions and neural networks associated with consciousness.  Techniques like fMRI, EEG, and TMS are providing increasingly detailed insights. We are learning more about attention, awareness, and different states of consciousness (e.g., sleep, anesthesia).
*   **Explanatory Gap is a Problem of Complexity:**  The "explanatory gap" (the feeling that it's hard to see how physical processes give rise to subjective experience) is seen as a temporary problem due to the sheer complexity of the brain. Eventually, with enough data and better theoretical frameworks, the gap will be bridged.

**Arguments for "No, Never":**

*   **The Hard Problem of Consciousness:**  Coined by philosopher David Chalmers, this argues that even if we understand all the neural correlates of consciousness, we still won't understand *why* those processes give rise to subjective experience ("qualia") – the feeling of what it's like to *be* something.  Knowing all the facts about how a brain processes color doesn't explain *why* red looks the way it does.
*   **Subjectivity is Intrinsically Inaccessible to Objective Science:** Science relies on objective measurements and third-person observation. Consciousness, by its very nature, is a subjective, first-person experience.  Therefore, science may be fundamentally limited in its ability to fully capture it.
*   **The Knowledge Argument (Mary's Room):** This thought experiment, developed by Frank Jackson, imagines a neuroscientist named Mary who knows all the physical facts about color perception but has never seen color herself. When she finally sees color, she learns something new – what it's *like* to see color. This suggests that there are facts about consciousness that are not physical facts.
*   **Quantum Consciousness:** Some theories propose that quantum phenomena play a crucial role in consciousness. If this is true, understanding consciousness would require a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics, which is itself still under development.  Furthermore, it might mean consciousness is fundamentally non-algorithmic and thus can't be fully captured by computation.
*   **Dualism/Panpsychism:** These philosophies argue that consciousness is either a separate substance from matter (dualism) or is a fundamental property of all matter (panpsychism).  If either of these is true, then reducing consciousness to purely physical processes is impossible.

**Key Considerations:**

*   **Defining Consciousness:**  A major challenge is defining what we mean by "consciousness" in the first place. There are different aspects, such as awareness, self-awareness, sentience, and qualia.
*   **Levels of Explanation:**  Even if we can't fully explain *why* consciousness exists, we might still be able to explain *how* it works at a neurological level. This would be a significant achievement, even if it doesn't satisfy everyone.
*   **The Role of Philosophy:**  Philosophy plays a crucial role in framing the questions, exploring different theoretical possibilities, and analyzing the implications of scientific findings.

**In conclusion:**

The question of whether science can fully explain consciousness is one of the biggest open questions in science and philosophy.  There are strong arguments on both sides, and the debate is ongoing.  It's likely that progress will continue to be made in understanding the neural correlates of consciousness, but whether this will ultimately lead to a complete explanation of subjective experience remains to be seen. The answer depends on your philosophical commitments and your interpretation of the nature of consciousness itself.
