So...I appreciate your attempt at a reasonable perspective, but unfortunately the central challenge--separating personal misconceptions from ideas that we can justify our belief in--is again wholly unmet.

Most of your arguments are a less-precisely-phrased version of Descartes' thoughts in Discourse and Meditations (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/#MinRel); the logical errors in that perspective are, well, as old as Descartes (see citation).

And anyway, you're making an additional claim that, if it is to have any meaning at all, needs some grounding: the idea that you have access to a non-conscious awareness. This isn't what Descartes arrives at, nor is it something that most others conclude, even if they do grant some special status to consciousness.

The problem with this all is that in the last four hundred years we've learned a staggeringly tremendous amount about biology. Even at the time of the logical positivists, you could argue that the perspective that mind was material was still more assumption than established, even while science had pretty conclusively shown that in other areas materialism was if not literally true, at the very least an astoundingly good model to have, with no other contenders coming remotely close in explanatory power.

But it simply isn't true any longer. Even Penrose agrees that consciousness is a product of the brain--he just thinks it's some sort of quantum mechanical thingy, despite the mechanisms he suggests seeming to be too short-lived by ten orders of magnitude, to not solve the problem of consciousness anyway, and which is supposed to explain, in addition to consciousness, brain activity that already is plenty well-explained by neuronal firing. Among people who do research in the field and even know who they are, Penrose and Hameroff are widely regarded as a joke because their ideas don't advance science in any way--they don't have any specific predictions that have been confirmed uniquely by their theory, and at every turn they have to add new layers and complexity to their theory in order to keep it from being too badly disproved by existing experiments that people did for other reasons (and/or because someone actually checked their handwaving with precise calculations and found them to be immensely wrong).

And, meanwhile, that mind is implemented by brain just keeps on racking up evidence (not that it needs any more at this point).

Materialism isn't an assumption. It's an immensely well-tested theory. It's so well tested that--just like with other very-well-tested theories, including relativity, classical quantum mechanics, evolution, and so on--if someone suggests a violation, the onus is on them to show very very clearly why they're right.

In particular, when it has to do with cognition, the idea that intuition is particularly helpful has been roundly shown to be wrong. As I mentioned before, our intuitions about our cognitive processes are terrible.

We get demonstrably confused about color, about time, about why we do things, about continuity of processes, and on and on. So when you say "but I also appreciate intuitivity"--pitting it in this arena with its myriad well-documented inaccuracies against decades of careful (materialist) science--I simply cannot be impressed.

It's like having an argument about how far one has to drive to get from New York to Los Angeles, and one side is using Google Maps, and you're going, "I got a real good intuitive feel for distance, man, it's like, 2022 miles--isn't that amazing? It's 2022, and it's 2022 miles." (It's actually 2770 miles, give or take.)

If this feels dismissive or condescending, the problem is that you're trying to make grand proclamations about an extremely complex phenomenon about which much is known, but you're talking neither about the complexity nor about what is known.

If you want to learn a bit about what neuroscientists do know about consciousness, check out this article by Christoff Koch, one of the pioneers of the experimental study of consciousness (along with the late Francis Crick, who, not being satisfied with merely uncovering the foundation of life via the structure of DNA, wanted to also solve the puzzle of how consciousness works): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x