There is no "just because" in my model, and I submit that asserting that there is, as a reason for dismissing the argument, is either lazy, or dishonest, or because I have not made my point very well...probably the latter.
The machinery of mechanism-based knowing is well established and very successful. But if you use the machinery to address the question of awareness and thought you are predestined to discover mechanism as your explanation. You have painted yourself into a self-fulfilling corner.
But in doing so you have to throw out a great deal of data both anecdotal and generally observable, including the experiences you yourself have had of the world. Subtracting yourself from the viewpoint observing the data is a nice, somewhat nihilistic idea, in theory, but it never happens in fact.
Furthermore, the most developed model of brain-based thught can barely come up with a crude approximation of how patterns and emerging echelons of patterns form in the brain, and can not bridge from these complex analyses to an explanation of the most everyday moment of understanding, or compassion, let alone inspiration.
The whole thing is a cold not predicated on the dubious premise of "objectivity" and separable events and objects, serial time and uniform space. Even the physicists are giving up on these grand Newtonian postulates, but the thing is they have proven far too useful to throw out.
And that's as it should be.. But let us not fool ourselves into confusing such balderdash with the ground truth.
Anyway, it is clear I am speaking Greek in a French whorehouse here, so I think I will go down to the river and jump the next caique heading back to Piraeus....