Place's Analogy

I thought it was interesting for Place to make the following SAT style analogy: lightning is to motion of electric charges, as consciousness is to a certain brain process, in that the first term (lightning, consciousness) is the word used by the "man in the street" to describe a certain phenomenon, and the second term (motion of electric charges, certain brain process perhaps) is the more technical description of the causal connection between two non-independent events.
By adding this technical description, in light of certain discoveries, we presumably gain predictive powers. We now know the conditions under which flashes of lightning will be seen by people on the street, and this in turn provides a better explanation of why those flashes of lightning took place. I'm assuming that something like this is what we're looking for in the case of consciousness: We want to be able to know the conditions under which, I guess, people will report feelings of consciousness (or something else)? And we want a better explanation than people on the street can provide for why those feelings of consciousness take place. But is there a more concrete description of what it is we're trying to explain?
A final comment on the lightning analogy. Back in the day, before they knew with certainty that lightning is just the motion of electric charges, what were the possibilities involved in the scientific explanation of lightning actually is? And, to push the analogy, what have people thought are the possibilities involved in what consciousness actually is? Assuming that the word consciousness actually has a reference (sorry, I'm probably butchering the real philsophy of language involved here), could its reference be anything other than some sort of brain process?