But, as I'm emphasizing, neither me nor you can give a rigorous logical explanation of why either of our viewpoints are correct. Or, failing that, to even ascribe a meaningful probability or likelihood to our viewpoints.

Wait, why is that? The viewpoint that I have stated here is primarily that the hard problem of consciousness isn't an empirical question in the first place, but a philosophical one. If I add in a definition of consciousness into the mix, Isn't that a claim that could be logically proven or refuted by someone?

Additionally, neither of us have really given our definitions of consciousness, but couldn't quite a few definitions of consciousness be refuted solely on the basis of internal inconsistency?