the aware source behind the circuit

To start from this assumption is a fruitless research agenda. It has been tried since 4000 years or more and brought forth nothing but different names for a moving agens: psyche, anima, ying/yang, force vitale, soul,...

I refute this notion not so much because I would know that it is wrong (actually I don't) but because it leads to nowhere but assertions and appeals to wrong analogies. Brain research within a few decades has brought many more new facts than centuries of philosophying (or whatever the verb here is).

The radical alternative is not that the source behind the circuitry is some master neuron (a wrong way taken by some researchers) but that some patterns of action of the circuitry give rise to autoception.

I don't see the moment coming where we speak in our daily language about feelings and incidents in terms of neural circuitry. The vernacular still will use words like death, love, anger, I,.... for these words are very good abbreviations for parts of our autoception and the communication is much easier by using these words. Science, however, will use a completely different notion, for this will be the fruitful approach.

Knowing about the four basic forces in physics doesn't prevent us (even the physicists among us) from using expressions like 'that's a hard surface', or 'attention, you may fall down' or 'that breaks easily' instead of much more complicated formulations. But you shouldn't expect people doing research on that field using your everday language and thinking.

Wolfgang