I lack a definition of consciousness, any way to measure it (for example, to find that a cat is and a rock isn't) and any understanding of how it arises. I'm struggling to see why you would say it's not a hard problem without having answers to these three problems. (On the other hand, maybe you do? That would be wonderful)
Well, of course since it's a human natural-language definition it's fuzzy (fuzzy meaning overloaded with several meanings since we tend to encounter all at once) and you can fulfill some parts but not others. But a rock is definitely no conscious because it doesn't have a mental object that it labels itself that includes the system that does its computations, can't examine or manipulate its thoughts, it's not roughly modelable as a human (not the most egalitarian part of the definition, but there I think), and all that good stuff.
A cat probably does, prob...
If you are already an atheist that does not believe in ghosts, what can you learn from rationality? I'd love to be wrong about lots of things but my problem is, I think I'm right.
As far as I can tell, none of this reflective thinking has lead to deeper understanding of consciousness. (A subject I wish I wasn't so interested in, because its study seems so futile).
If you feel like it, please tell me about any particular instances where actively working on your own thought processes has lead you to realize you were wrong about something (other than blatantly false things like those I mentioned above) or if the same program lead to any new understanding of consciousness.