We are using "consciousness" with two different definitions. There is a definition of "the thing that observes the universe," which you are using, and a definition of "the thing that contains your self," much less scientific, which I am using. The former definition is very clearly understood, but also doesn't really matter in this discussion, since your observations of the world are very clearly known to be moderated through meatspace, but the "consciousness" in the latter sense persists across so-called "losses of consciousness" (when using the former definition).
It is very legitimate to say that the latter definition doesn't exist, but that is as much a belief as the idea that it does. I personally don't believe that it exists, but I think it's hubris or folly to say that science shows that it definitely doesn't.
Re: your last paragraph, I think you’d do well to read up on epistemology and argumentation, because you’ve set up a false dichotomy. I can try to illustrate:
Personally, I have yet to see any evidence that supports your claim that the second type of consciousness actually exists in any way, other than as a concept in purely theoretical philosophical discussions. I am not making the claim that it doesn’t exist; just that right now I don’t believe _your_ claim that it does. I don’t need to provide any evidence to have this position, as I am not the one making the claim.
My default position on any claim, including this one, is one of non-belief, as it is nonsensical in my opinion to hold a belief in some claim until and unless that belief is supported by evidence.
So, I can rightfully say that I don’t believe the latter type of consciousness exists, and I don’t think this position is hubris or folly; rather, it’s the only rational position to take given the evidence presented (at this point, essentially none). I’d genuinely love to see some evidence compelling enough to be convinced otherwise, though.
That's an interesting contention, and I'm looking forward to your precise explanation of the precise neural pathways involved in the production of a painting, if whatever is left over is the empty set, and every single activity is determined only by chemical and physical interactions in the brain. In particular, I would like you to show the precise neural firings and chemical pathways that lead to the exact composition of each brush stroke. By this contention, there should be essentially nothing interposing between your past memories and the exact contents of the painting.
I think you're taking an extreme view for the sake of argument, but there is still quite a bit unknown about how we actually process information. There is a clear biological component to all of it, but the biological processes fall well short of a complete explanation of things like creative processes and the sense of self (let alone logical thought), and you seem well-versed enough in the literature to know that.
That’s not how science operates, it accepts best fits for existing data even in the absence of absolute knowledge.
We didn’t need the DNA of every creature to have ever lived to construct the tree of life. It’s a model initially created from examining the structure of organisms both living and dead, which has been refined over time as we slightly alter things based on new evidence such as DNA.
As a consequence things aren’t static, astronomers etc constantly refine existing models to fit new data. Thus the conclusion about what happens after death is subject to change in response to new data, but what we have today is still the current explanation based on existing evidence.
What makes science useful isn’t exact answers it’s being generally close enough to correct as to be useful. Is Quantum mechanics a full explanation for every physical phenomenon? No, but it’s really difficult to notice the edge cases in your daily life.
Ah, I see. When you state that we know precisely how things work due to science such that there is no room for any unknown "consciousness," you don't actually need to know precisely how things work because that isn't how science works. Got it.
By the way, I agree with you that it's not the state of science today, but I can imagine a world where we actually can do that if we get to the point where there is nothing unobservable about the mind.
That doesn't make it scientific to categorically deny the existence of things that we don't know about the existence of.
It is very legitimate to say that the latter definition doesn't exist, but that is as much a belief as the idea that it does. I personally don't believe that it exists, but I think it's hubris or folly to say that science shows that it definitely doesn't.