> I would rather say that it seems likely science in the strict sense cannot either support or refute the existence of consciousness. It's essentially a philosophical question.
Agreed, but I'd make the following change: however, whatever consciousness is, science can safely assume most healthy humans have it, and can make educated guesses (and experiments) to explore whether insects have it.
Sure, I honestly don't have any problem defining consciousness in terms of the human experience of it. After all to my mind that's what it is - an experience. We can use scientific processes and techniques to analyse it for sure, to trim away misconceptions and more precisely understand it's parameters but we're never going to identify a 'consciousness particle', or special quantum entanglement whatsit that Roger Penrose seems to believe is responsible for it. I'd rather just embrace the fact that this is a philosophical question. Science can illuminate philosophy, just as philosophy can illuminate science.
Agreed, but I'd make the following change: however, whatever consciousness is, science can safely assume most healthy humans have it, and can make educated guesses (and experiments) to explore whether insects have it.