You will have to further explain what it is you think we know. Many philosophers recognize that we still don't understand how the mind and body are connected.
I have to disagree that the purpose of philosophers in this field is becoming less prominent. Day by day, science is discovering new ways that our brain works, in the physical reality. Our brain works in weird and wonderful ways.
Firstly however, I will raise the complications of the body-mind problem if you choose an alternative other than a entirely material brain.
The assumption with the mind-body problem(which I believe you are referring to) is that the mind is separate from the body; a kind of dualism. I will be raising the problems on dualism which involves a metaphysical mind; one outside of our physical reality. Unless you believe in some other form of dualism(perhaps a physical mind disconnected from our physical brain, which is not a good position to hold), this should be a good argument against what you think.
One of the major notions of dualism, specially cartesian dualism is the pineal gland. This particular form of dualism was invented by De'Carte many years ago(however many people still believe in it today). The concepts that I will discuss can be extrapolated to other forms of dualism however.
The problem we are faced with dualism is that there must be some way to communicate between the mind and body. If the mind is non-physical, it is an impossibility to communicate between the mind and body, as it is an impossibility for something non-physical to interact with something physical(which is the only mechanism of information transferral). So the idea that there is some non-physical mind that is connected to our body(by the pineal gland by the Cartesian view) is an impossibility by definition.
Another similar idea is what Daniel Dennett calls the homunculus; a little man who lives either inside our brain or in some ethereal realm who is who we are, and watches what we see on a kinda vision TV, and controls us remotely. Well, we know one doesn't live within our brain, and as I discussed previously, a homunculus that communicates with us through non-physical means is an impossibility. Maybe the homunculus lives in the physical world, and communicates through physical means? It is a possibility, but then that is now an area of science that would need to be investigated, and we have gathered
no evidence so far to suggest that.
Now, I would like to elaborate on the above issue of the homunculus, and the often comfortable idea of dualism that we are susceptible to believing. Even I believed it in some form until recently; it is the natural position. We as thinking beings think we are something more than we actually are, or else we wouldn't feel as if we had a purpose and would most likely die out through processes of evolution. To elaborate on the issue of dualism, I will be taking an example from Daniel Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained".
Shakey is a robot that was developed somewhere in the late 1970's, and was a very smart robot for its time. It had a camera attached to a robot body that could move around. In specific conditions, it could detect particular shapes with its camera(eg. a box or a pyramid), move a ramp into place, push them up the ramp and off the edge of a platform that the ramp lead up.
Now at first sight, you could say Shakey had a mind of its own. Shakey's systems were completely contained within his robot body. There was no trickery, no radio signals by hidden homunculus(people) hiding behind the covers. However, the observers of Shakey had a unique insight; a monitor in which they could observe what Shakey saw.
Furthermore, they could see the processes in which Shakey accomplished what he did; taking the particularly lit scene, distinguishing the edges of the objects and applying vector calculations to search for angles that represented particular shapes(ie. triangles, squares). These processes would appear on the computer monitor, we were seeing inside of Shakeys mind. We were free to turn these monitors off at any time however, and disconnect them, and Shakey would still accomplish his task, without the need for an observer, some homunculus to watch on.
Daniel D then makes an interesting adaption where he merges another robot of the past with Shakey. This robot was a robot designed for language. It could recognise particular phrases, and then talk back with specific phrases associated to the phrases it heard.
Now what if you programmed Shakey with this new language module to respond when he was asked: "How do you detect the box infront of you?". He could respond in many ways:
1. "I capture multiple frames on my video camera, taking each frame, converting it to its binary analouge and applying a light filtering algorithm which applies a contrast distinguishing the dark edges from the light sides. I then take the linear approximations of these edges and apply vector algebra in order to work out specific angles made by the edges. From this data, I can match it with previously known angles to determine whether it is a box."
2. "I find the light-dark boundaries and draw white lines around them in my mind's eye; then I look at the vertices; if I find a Y vertex for instance, I know I have a box"
3. "I don't know; some things just look boxy. It just comes to me. It's by intuition".
If we look at this from the perspective of the human, we would respond with number 3. Lets say Shakey responded with #3. And lets say you then told him that you could see the processes that decide how he completes his task and explain to him the exact details about how he does what he does. He would probably respond "How dare you tell me how I think, I know how I think and it just comes to me!".
If you take this example and apply it to some of the things you take for granted; distinguishing objects, distances, colours ext, to us it feels like it is intuition; we don't actually think about it. But in reality there is most likely some complex chemical process behind it which we just don't have to be aware of, and there is no reason why we should feel as if there is a process.
If you would like to look further into a possible model of the consciousness(a philosophical discussion which proposed a possible model of consciousness which answers some of the difficult questions whilst staying consistent to science), I recommend you read Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".
He provides his "multiple drafts" model in where our consciousness is like a daily news paper agency, where a new paper is produced every day. Content is shifted around, gathered from various locations, edited, cut, information from a certain date may arrive at a later date(however our retention of the previous date we would still retain) and eventually what is redundant is left out, and only the most important content gets through and forms the news paper; influencing our actual physical actions.
It is well worth the read.
I hope this provides a more interesting viewpoint into a physical consciousness, and I'm more than happy to attempt to answer any questions you may have.
My mind/body connection suffers at times (my fingers don't type what I 'm thinking.) However, it's connected as well: 
