I think both premises are partially correct. There's more to consciousness than the sum of a human being's parts (more specifically the human brain and neural/endocrine systems), but that doesn't necessarily equate to mysticism. It's a simple fact that human consciousness is something heretofore undefined, yet objectively and measurably different than anything else that has been measured in the Universe so far.

Something a certain infamous philosopher elucidated for me recently is that there's no such thing as "supernatural." There's either an objective reality in nature or a misrepresentation of it. In all circumstances this is true, regardless of how we think or feel about it. I wish I could recall the exact details of the logical proof that convinced me. Paraphrasing, if it's measurable, it's real, otherwise, it's superstition.

In all examples of previous superstitious thinking about natural phenomena, it has been at some point assigned a superstitious and supernatural explanation before a true understanding of each phenomenon has been observed and adequately described. To sum this up, there is nature which is understood, and nature which is poorly understood. The word supernatural might more aptly be assigned to the latter. We don't need to ascribe it to superstitious assumptions about nature. We just simply can say, "We don't know (yet)."