you seem more bad faith than the group

The debate on consciousness are on par with Copenhagen interpretation versus pilot wave versus multiple words - except the underlying theory they're trying to describe is also not well defined

We can only practically describe subsets of what's required for some basic functions, and we can describe a bunch of chemistry, some brain activation patterns, etc. But nobody can tie that together to why we feel what we feel (and some don't agree that qualia is real, that perception itself is an illusion)

I don't think there are debates about that. There's whatever they say, and there's the few that make content by saying, "okay, let's take a deep breath and pretend there's anything to work with, and go from there".

Actual modern flat Earth was a spoof, I believe, but enough people with low science education and some religion ran with it as having anything worthwhile. And there's the few that don't believe it but feed off those others, keeping it going.

It's really not difficult. You made a statement that stated that you believe that there is consensus, so presumably that means that you know where that consensus exists, therefore provide a link to it. If you cannot then you cannot make the assertion that consensus exists, because by definition it doesn't.

Your entire argument rests on the basic idea that there is a scientific definition for consciousness and we have a test for if something is conscious or not. There is no test because there is no consensus. It is not possible for you to prove through scientific rigor that you are conscious, and presumably you're human. So how can they possibly be consensus on something as contentious as artificial intelligence?