nonetheless

Per dual-slit experiments, if we set up the experiment to see it as a particle, it shows as such. If we set it up to detect as a wave, we see interference patterns of waves as such. This is my understanding of the most exemplified of QM phenomena. Observer seems to play a part in this drama. In philosophical reference to this, I can only think of Solipsism

Yes, agreed other than the initial condition which is never the same, why should it be, in this universe of constant evolution and change where nothing is static in xyz-t axis, Subatomic interactions all around us at any moment. QM seems to be valid (and welcomed in breaking the narrow presumed paradigms} with a revolutionary subjective participation in mind that changes expected outcome. Before QM, subject/object boundary did not matter in the outcome as it is deterministic and same result regardless of the observer. But then after QM we face another theory of seeming consistency, string theory. A pure math mathematical abstraction that lies beyond experimentation and validation, and heavily loaded with derision by the "shut up and calculate" hardcore reductionist/experiment tribe.

"we" is a collective human recognition of limitation. A telling caution, as even the most brilliant of us stumbles with certainty. True/False logic applied to consciousness gives us that.

Yes, very much so. Understanding the source is as imperative as the destination if not more As for "who", it's our father of modern physics, Einstein, in disagreement of Quantum Mechanics which seems to challenge his absolute determinism. One influential insight to human consciousness may be The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Dual hemisphere brain anatomy started its necessary interconnection only several thousands of years ago, giving a start to self-introspection of the human mind. Before this bridging at corpus callosum, our ancient writings reveal the absence of this introspection (to be or not to be, I think therefore I am, etc). Rather the right hemisphere talked to the left in voices and visions associated with external divine, easily lending itself to religious paradigms. Its a compelling view of understanding human consciousness at its infancy.

I have to admit some influence of my way of looking at consciousness had its start after watching Tarkovsky's masterpiece Solaris (not hollywood remake). A giant conscious planet interacts with the consciousness of the scientists orbiting it, with deep compelling discussions of what consciousness could be, and as for mere humans, different level of it.

Apologies for misunderstanding the topic at hand, "Always exists", seems to me quite the absolute indeed. Always is preceded by a certain presumed idea (or definition) of consciousness that is always, in the first place. We are not geocentric no more, as a cautionary repeating tale against any philosophical/scientific ideas of certainty, past, now, or forseeable future. Not to be confused with not thinking about it, of course we should spending time investigating, debating, etc. But without abstract religious ideas of certainty, absolute, nothing, infinity, etc. It's a matter of humility of our human small existence. Don't know why we declare that god does NOT have a gambling problem with dice games, per our most respected scientist. One of modern scientific tragedy may be our inability to understand the "the hard problem" of consciousness, the very unknown thing that gives rise to the grand theories of standard model, quantum, string, multi-verse, holographic universe, etc. Modern physics has degraded into the study of "dead things", atoms. We seem to accept what the mysterious computer spits out, without a good understanding of how it works. I would love to hear what our current definition of consciousness is

The very definition of consciousness seems to be a question for the future generation to seriously study and explore, not recent us of present, of barely a century of modern science. So far we understand it is a product of atomic (sub-atomic) interactions within a cramped skull confine, giving rise to an awareness of having it, regardless its mystery and secrets. Atomic interactions are not limited to a 3 lb beaker of bones and skins that is us. As any serious lover of animals, especially dogs and cats like many others, would freely declare they are conscious beings of loyalty, pathos, intelligence, some more than humans. I wonder under what definitional basis of consciousness do we reject them from our self-proclaimed perch. Not long ago, earth stopped being center of the universe as we emerged into light of renaissance from the dark ages of "we know everything that is needed in a singe book." We got long light years to go. Any absolute declaration of understanding of what consciousness is (or anything else absolute for that matter) is to assert the final breaching of the gap between the fingers of Adam and the absolute. It will probably kill philosophy, as it breaths and healthily lives in that gap.

Not sure how we define and describe consciousness, let alone what inherent "true/false" equation whose essence we abstract into being. If consciousness is assumed in humans, there seems to be a strong excuse in ascribing elsewhere of its presence, animals, plants, atoms, etc. Ideas of Panpsychism seems to be our redemption. Why should only humans have it in this continuity of the universe. Ideas of Leibniz comes to mind, consciousness curve may be plotted across all beings and things, even atoms. It does not drop off after the ego of humans. But then, how do we categorically assume that consciousness will always exist ?