But isn't this how it actually is? With all explanations of everything? There's always a categorical chasm to cross: that which is vs that which you think about what is.

I have the sense that I'm conscious. I also know of some explanations for why I'm conscious that I reject, and some that I have not yet rejected. If I pretend to accept any one of them, though, it's a discontinuous leap from that explanation to what I actually experience.

But I don't see the low frequency of red photons either.

That's the nature of models: models are approximations to what they model, hopefully with convenient properties (e.g. they're simple, or you can restart them and run them with different parameters, or something).

In the case of red light, I accept what it is in terms of photons of a particular energy range not because of my direct experience of the redness of it, but because I have studied the associated phenomena (some directly, some only by reading).

So why would I not accept what consciousness is on the same basis? Obviously I wouldn't accept anything that drastically is at odds with my perception of my own consciousness (at least not without a very compelling explanation for why the perception ought to be wrong)--but neither would I with red light (e.g. I would not accept that at night there is more red light than there is during the day).

I do agree that intuitions are probably differing here, somewhere, but I am not convinced that intuitions cannot routinely yield to argument. The key is to isolate and explore the intuition.

I suppose if eventually one gets to a point where one says something like: "Yes, I see what you mean, but I cannot accept that and there is no justification for why. I simply cannot," then I would have to agree that this would probably not yield to argument.