Are you sure? I mean, I'm just as amenable as the next guy to go on a journey through the Philcasso Blue Period [How do we know blue I see is the same as the blue you see?]Wosbald wrote:
Consciousness is not an empirically verifiable fact. You have to believe in it to know it. Or know it to believe in it.
But if you have a corpse and a non-corpse in a room and ask "Are you dead yet?," it is empirically demonstrable that only one of them hears your question and responds.
With a good scanner, you can look at the electrical activity in a persons head and KNOW for a fact what state of consciousness they're in: Coma, one of the several sleep stages, awake listening to Blue Velvet, working on math or reading Kant.
If you have a GREAT machine, it can "read" the signals, decode, and create an image of it.
We may not know the deep foundations yet, or whether it has agency-capacity/causal power...but we sure as hell know consciousness exists.
[[and, again, same point as on other posts by folk, if it is fundamentally unknowable, and/or non-existent, neither option [or any of the imaginary positions that become possible to take in such circumstances] makes the god/creator-problem easier to solve or more rational, or even leap-of-faith worthy---it does precisely the opposite]]